alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Johnny ROGERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Henry WALDON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Nos. 17220, 17221.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Feb. 25, 1963.

Decided March 14, 1963.

*224Mr. Norman B. Frost, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant in No. 17220.

Mr. John C. Poole, Washington, D. C., (appointed by this court) for appellant in No. 17221.

Mr. Tim Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Fahy, Danaher and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

 These appeals, consolidated in this court, followed convictions under an indictment joining the two appellants on charges of robbery and assault with intent to commit robbery, as defined by 22 D.C.Code §§ 2901 and 501.1 *Counsel appointed by this court have ably presented their contentions for reversal. In the case of Waldon the principal contention is that statements made after his arrest and before preliminary hearing were erroneously received in evidence.2 In the case of Rogers the principal ground advanced for reversal is also the admission in evidence of statements of the accused, said to be the fruit of an arrest without warrant or probable cause. We are satisfied, however, that the arrest was authorized, so that this objection to the evidence cannot be sustained. As to Waldon’s objection it was not made below; and the circumstances of neither case call upon us to exercise our discretionary authority to resort to Fed.R. Crim.P. 52(b).

Affirmed.

1

. The sentences of two to seven years imprisonment on each of the two counts are concurrent as to Waldon who was found guilty of both charges. Rogers, who was found guilty only of robbery, was also sentenced for a period of imprisonment of two to seven years.

2

. It is also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict but we are satisfied a question for the jury arose from the evidence.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 179 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22320]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8957-7]


Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC); Notice 
of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The Children's 
Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) is a necessary committee 
which is in the public interest. Accordingly, CHPAC will be renewed for 
an additional two-year period. The purpose of CHPAC is to provide 
advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on issues 
associated with development of regulations, guidance and policies to 
address children's health risks.
    Inquiries may be directed to Carolyn Hubbard, Designated Federal 
Officer, CHPAC, U.S. EPA, OCHP MC 1107A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a221f08080b180e44090b18050613042a0f1a0b440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a221f08080b180e44090b18050613042a0f1a0b440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>, 202-564-2189.

    Dated: September 11, 2009.
 Martha Shimkin,
Division Director, Office of Children's Health Protection, and 
Environmental Education, Child and Aging, Health Protection Division.
[FR Doc. E9-22320 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### H. L. ELLIOTT and Another v. H. J. BARDIN.1

July 24, 1914.

Nos. 18,788-(263).

Sale — evidence.

The evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding that the sale was not made to defendant. [Reporter.]

Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $7.60. The case was tried before Charles L. Smith, J., who denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, made findings and ordered judgment in favor of defendant. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment and from the order for judgment, plaintiffs appealed.

Affirmed.

*David R. Thomas,*for appellants.

*William Nash,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in — N. W. —.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant rendered by the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis.

The complaint alleged a sale of goods, wares and merchandise of the value of $39.60 to defendant, that only $32 thereof had been paid, and demanded! judgment for $7.60. The answer denied any sale to defendant, and alleged that the sale was made to one Walter Dingman; that Dingman ordered two tons andi no more of alfalfa hay at $16 per ton; that the hay was delivered to him; that *534plaintiffs were paid in full therefor, and that defendant acted solely as the agent of Dingman in the transaction. There is no controversy over the fact that the order was given by defendant over the telephone; that the price of the hay was $16 per ton; that two tons were ordered to be delivered at the Soo depot to be loaded on a car; that Dingman left $32 with defendant to pay for it; that plaintiffs delivered to Dingman 950 pounds of hay, of the value of $7.60, in excess of the two tons; and that defendant paid over to them the $32 left by Dingman. In addition to these facts defendant testified in substance that he stated to plaintiffs that Dingman wanted to buy two tons of alfalfa hay and have it delivered at the Soo depot for shipment in a car he was then loading; that the hay was for Dingman not for himself; that plaintiffs could collect the price on delivering the hay at the depot, or Dingman would leave the money for it with defendant; that plaintiffs fixed the price at $32 and directed defendant to collect that sum which he did. As this evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding that the sale was. not made to defendant, ifche consideration of other questions is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.
#### §§ 20.805-20.899 [Reserved]
#### § 20.1410 Rule 1410. Stays pending court action.

The Board will stay its consideration of a motion under this subpart upon receiving notice that the Board decision that is the subject of the motion has been appealed to a court of competent jurisdiction until the appeal has been concluded or the court has issued an order permitting, or directing, the Board to proceed with the motion.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a))
# Official Journal C 165A/10 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 165A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6610 May 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 165A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6610 May 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2023/C 165 A/01 | Vacancy notice CONS/AD/188/23 – Head of Unit – GSC.DPO Data Protection Officer | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2023/C 165 A/01

Vacancy notice CONS/AD/188/23 – Head of Unit – GSC.DPO Data Protection Officer

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting Documentation for Various Telephone Calls During Week of 7 October 2009 with ArkemaRepresentatives Regarding Fluorinated Gas ProductionDate:7 October2009Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #):Deborah Ottinger, EPA, 202-343-9149,Ottinger.deborah@epa.gov; Karen Schaffner, RTI,ksschaffner@rti.orgName of Organization (Attach list of all attendees namesand emails if possible):Rich Raiders, Greg Watson of ArkemaSummary of Discussion(e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.):EPA and Arkema representatives discussed a number of issuesrelated to the generation and emission of fluorinated GHGs from fluorinated gasproduction, as well as to measurement of these fluorinated GHG emissions. Arkema representatives noted that fluorinated GHGs can be generatedand emitted from processes that do not produce fluorinatedGHGs. These fluorinated GHGs may be by-products or feedstocks. Arkema attemptsto minimize such emissions through a Leak Detection and Repairprogram. Their detectors can detect many fluorinated GHGs, but perhaps not all.Camera technology doesn’t work for HFCs.For processes that have been developed or significantly optimized over the past few years, Arkema has developed detailed process flow diagrams,including analysis of the byproducts that occur in the process and mass-balance tables to track where various flowsare going. In general, thechemistry is well understood, although they could encounter anunexpected molecule. This has happened. Most streams containing fluorinatedGHGs go to a thermal oxidizer or to a dedicated Subpart EEE HWC incinerator. Stack test was performed for TOseveral years ago. Incinerator isperformance-tested every 5 years. The representatives didnot immediately know what chemicals the TO had been testedfor.Arkema would prefer an emissions estimating approach thatfocused on “end of pipe,” what was being emitted. Theyhave learned how to destroylarge quantities of fluorinated gases very quickly. The destruction devices are tuned to a high enough temperature tobreak the C-F bond.Arkema has used ASPEN modeling programs to estimate stackemissions. The producer has analysis results for some streams and is gathering iton others. Arkema’s sampling philosophy is to take a few samples and see where you are. If the samples don’t line up with what is expected, or ifthere’s unexpected variability, keep checking. They will runthree tests, prefer 10 if they can get them. For continuous processes, most streamsaren’t going to be very variable.Written Comments Provided?No.Did they also submit to Docket?No.Date sentto EPA-CCDNone
§ 21.3300 Special restorative training. ( a ) *Purpose of special restorative training.* The Department of Veterans Affairs may prescribe special restorative training where needed to overcome or lessen the effects of a physical or mental disability for the purpose of enabling an eligible person to pursue a program of education, special vocational program or other appropriate goal. Medical care and treatment or psychiatric treatment are not included. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3540 through 3543)
( b ) *Eligible persons.* VA may prescribe special restorative training for an eligible person who is a child, spouse, or surviving spouse except for a spouse whose qualification as an eligible person is under § 21.3021(a)(3)(ii). The special restorative training must begin after December 26, 2001, for a spouse or surviving spouse. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3501, 3540, 3541, 3543; sec. 109, Pub. L. 107-103, 115 Stat. 986)
( c ) *Special restorative training courses.* The counseling psychologist or vocational rehabilitation counselor, after consulting with the Vocational Rehabilitation Panel, may prescribe for special restorative training purposes courses such as— ( 1 ) Speech and voice correction or retention,
( 2 ) Language retraining,
( 3 ) Speech (lip) reading,
( 4 ) Auditory training,
( 5 ) Braille reading and writing,
( 6 ) Training in ambulation,
( 7 ) One-hand typewriting,
( 8 ) Nondominant handwriting,
( 9 ) Personal, social and work adjustment training,
( 10 ) Remedial reading, and
( 11 ) Courses at special schools for mentally and physically disabled or
( 12 ) Courses provided at facilities which are adapted or modified to meet special needs of disabled students. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3540, 3541, 3543)
( d ) *Duration of special restorative training.* VA may provide special restorative training in excess of 45 months where an additional period of time is needed to complete the training. Entitlement, including any authorized in excess of 45 months, may be expended through an accelerated program requiring a rate of payment for tuition and fees in excess of— ( 1 ) $247.00 a month for the period beginning July 1, 2004, and ending September 30, 2004;
( 2 ) $251.00 a month for the period beginning October 1, 2004, and ending September 30, 2005;
( 3 ) $258.00 a month for the period beginning October 1, 2005, and ending September 30, 2006;
( 4 ) $268.00 a month for the period beginning October 1, 2006, and ending September 30, 2007;
( 5 ) $274.00 a month for the period beginning October 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2008; and
( 6 ) $284.00 a month for months after September 30, 2008. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3541(b), 3542)
( e ) *Special restorative training precluded in Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.* Special restorative training will not be provided in Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3543(b))
[48 FR 37973, Aug. 22, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 42725, Oct. 24, 1984; 50 FR 19934, May 13, 1985; 63 FR 67779, Dec. 9, 1998; 66 FR 32228, June 14, 2001; 68 FR 34322, June 9, 2003; 69 FR 62208, Oct. 25, 2004; 73 FR 2424, Jan. 15, 2008; 73 FR 79650, Dec. 30, 2008]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Tex as** 

April 24, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00942

- CR

Ray Martin RUIZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6537

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Ti me to File Brief is hereby GRANTED

. Time

is extended to May 16, 2019.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of April, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### § 21.9585 Travel expenses.

VA will not pay for any costs of travel to and from the place of counseling regardless of whether the individual requests educational and vocational counseling or whether the counseling is required.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 111, 3323(c))
§ 21.9555 Entitlement to supplemental educational assistance. In determining the entitlement of an individual who is eligible for supplemental educational assistance, VA will— ( a ) Calculate the individual's entitlement to 38 U.S.C. chapter 33 educational assistance on the day he or she establishes eligibility for supplemental educational assistance; and
( b ) Credit the individual with the same number of months and days of entitlement to supplemental educational assistance as the number calculated in paragraph (a) of this section.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3023, 3316)
Motion GRANTED , in Part, and DENIED, in Part, an d Order filed March 30, 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00226

- CV

____________ IN RE METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANY, L.P. AND MET WATER VISTA R I DGE, L.P. , Relator s

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 21st District Court Washington County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 37412



### ORDER

On March 30, 2022 , relator s In re Metropolitan Water Company, L.P. and Met
Water Vista R i dge, L.P. , filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relator s asks this court to compel the Honorable Carson Campbell, Judge of the 21st District
Court , in Washington County , Texas, to set aside his March 25, 2022 order directing relators to produce ele ctronic storage devices for forensic imaging and discovery ,2 entered in trial court number 37412 , styled Blue Water Systems, L.P., et al. v. Metropolitan Water Company, L.P., et al.

Relator s ha ve also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 52.8(b), 52.10. On March 30, 2022, relator asks this court to stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of
mandamus.
It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relators ’ reque st for relief requires further consideration and that relator s will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT , in part, relators ’ motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER the March 25, 2022 order directing relators to produce electronic storage devices for forensic imaging and discovery, entered in trial court cause
number 37412 , Blue Water Systems, L.P. , et al. v. Metropolitan Water Company, L.P., et al.

, and the turning over of any forensic imag es already obtained, if any, to real parties in interest STAYED until a final decision by this court on relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court. The remainder of
the motion is DENIED

. In addition, the court requests r eal part ies in interest, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before April 20, 2022

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Chief Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.
116 STAT. 16 PUBLIC LAW 107–142—FEB. 12, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1937:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–155 (Comm. on Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): Sept. 10, considered and passed House.

Vol. 148 (2002): Jan. 28, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–142

107th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to engage in certain feasibility studies

of water resource projects in the State of Washington.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pacific Northwest Feasibility

Studies Act of 2002’’.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior may engage

in the following feasibility studies:

(1) The Tulalip Tribes Water Quality Feasibility Study,

to identify ways to meet future domestic and commercial water

distribution needs of the Tulalip Indian Reservation on the

Eastern Shore of Puget Sound, Washington.

(2) The Lower Elwha Klallam Rural Water Supply Feasibility Study, to identify additional rural water supply sources

for the Lower Elwha Indian Reservation on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington.

(3) The Makah Community Water Source Project Feasibility Study, to identify ways to meet the current and future

domestic and commercial water supply and distribution needs

of the Makah Indian Tribe on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington.

(b) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF RESULTS.—The Secretary of the

Interior shall make available to the public, upon request, the results

of each feasibility study authorized under subsection (a), and shall

promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice of the availability

of those results.

Approved February 12, 2002.

Federal Register,

publication.

Pacific Northwest

Feasibility

Studies Act of

2002.

Feb. 12, 2002

[H.R. 1937]
#### Mary E. Wait, Respondent, *v.*Jacob W. Butler, Appellant.

Appeal from an order at Special Term denying defendant’s motion for leave to amend his answer.

Samuel W. Weiss, for appellant.

Cromwell G. Macy, for respondent.

OonLAir, J.

The order appealed from must be reversed and defendant allowed to serve his proposed answer within five days from the service of the order herein on payment of costs before and after notice of trial, together with ten dollars’ costs of the motion. No costs of this appeal.

Issue to remain and cause to be tried on short-cause calendar when reached.

O’Dwyee, j:, concurs.

Order reversed, without costs.
§ 382.22 Calculation of Gross Revenues for SDARS. ( a ) Gross Revenues are: ( 1 ) Revenue recognized by the Licensee in accordance with GAAP from the operation of an SDARS and comprised of the following: ( i ) Subscription revenue recognized by Licensee directly from U.S. subscribers for licensee's SDARS; and
( ii ) Licensee's advertising revenues, or other monies received from sponsors, if any, attributable to advertising on channels other than those that use only incidental performances of sound recordings, less advertising agency and sales commissions.
( 2 ) Revenues set forth above to which Licensee is entitled but which are paid to a parent, wholly-owned subsidiary, or division of Licensee.
( b ) Gross Revenues exclude: ( 1 ) Monies or other consideration attributable to the sale and/or license of equipment and/or other technology, including but not limited to bandwidth, sales of devices that receive the Licensee's SDARS and any shipping and handling fees therefor;
( 2 ) Royalties paid to Licensee for intellectual property rights;
( 3 ) Monies or other consideration received by Licensee from the sale of phonorecords and digital phonorecord deliveries;
( 4 ) Sales and use taxes;
( 5 ) Credit card, invoice, activation, swap and early termination fees charged to subscribers and reasonably related to the Licensee's expenses to which they pertain;
( 6 ) Bad debt expense; and
( 7 ) Revenues recognized by Licensee (or otherwise received by Licensee if no GAAP “recognition” principles are applicable) for the provision of: ( i ) Current and future data services offered for a separate charge (*e.g.,* weather, traffic, destination information, messaging, sports scores, stock ticker information, extended program associated data, video and photographic images, and such other telematics and/or data services as may exist from time to time);
( ii ) Channels, programming, products and/or other services offered for a separate charge where such channels use only incidental performances of sound recordings;
( iii ) Channels, programming, products and/or other services provided outside of the United States; and
( iv ) Channels, programming, products and/or other services for which the performance of sound recordings and/or the making of Ephemeral Recordings is exempt from any license requirement or is separately licensed, including by a statutory license and, for the avoidance of doubt, webcasting, audio services bundled with television programming, interactive services, and transmissions to business establishments.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 6, 2010 

0429 

Order 

 

May 6, 2010 

140215 

ROBERT M. MARSHALL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140215 

 COA: 289602 

Dickinson CC: 08-015152-CK 

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.