alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 207 ) IV-C-174 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:21:02 AM Sheet 207 of 232*«° sr " v

' o z P. 2 

# r\-Qn~i\
UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y"T_ V ~C —J H/ V WASHINGTON , D.C
. 2046 0 " ^ / ' jf

JU L - 5 IpO l OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N

R . E . Braun 146 0 Fores t Avenu e De s Plaines , I L 6001 8 Dea r Mr
. Braun : 

# 7 ) i i g nmj;[jj ) AUG - I

### 199 1 Vx EP A AI R DC^ -

S , W*-<><\t Thank yo u fo r you r lette r o f May10 , 199 1 t o the Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yconcerning onboar d refueling vapor.recoverysystems . I t wil l b e submitte d t o th e publi c docke t fo r the onboar d rulemaking a s yo u requested . Yo u raise d some interesting Stag e I I system s instead o f onb o refueling emissions . W e wil l t a consideratio n i n ou r presen t ru l resolve d the Stag e I I vs . onboa r integrate d Stag e II/onboard con t Amendment s t o th e Clea n Ai r Act . onboar d controls , afte r consult s Transportatio n regarding safety , point s concerning th e us e o f ar d system s fo r the contro l o f k e you r comment s int o emaking . A s yo u know , Congres s d debat e b

ymandating a

n ro l approac hi n the 199 0 Afina l rul e requiring tio n wit hthe Departmen t o f i s require d b

yNovember , 1991 . Pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t Do n Kopinsk i o f m ystaf f a t (313 ) 668-422 9 i f yo u hav e an yquestion s o r additiona l comment s relate d t o thi s rulemaking . Sincerel yyours , ORIGINA L SIGNE D B Y RICHAR D D.W1LS0' ' Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s
SDSB:Passavant:cc:256 5 Plymout hRd:X408:7/2/91:I D # 4728 W Reviewe d b

yDZINGER : I f :X27'647:AR-455 : 7/3/91 : Wang No . 2287 T Contro l No . OMS-91-006 5

Primed on Recycled

Pv?, -
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0130(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0130(01)

**Council Decision of 3 December 1998 supplementing the definition of the form of crime 'traffic in human beings' in the Annex to the Europol Convention **

*
Official Journal C 026 , 30/01/1999 P. 0021 - 0021 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 3 December 1998 supplementing the definition of the form of crime 'traffic in human beings` in the Annex to the Europol Convention (1999/C 26/05)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Article 43(3) of the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention) (1),

Recalling the agreement within the Council on 4 December 1997 to supplement the definition of the form of crime 'traffic in human beings` in the Annex to the Europol Convention,

After discussion of the matter by the Europol Management Board,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The definition of the form of crime 'traffic in human beings` in the Annex to the Europol Convention is hereby supplemented so as to read as follows:

'- "traffic in human beings" means subjection of a person to the real and illegal sway of other persons by using violence or menaces or by abuse of authority or intrigue, especially with a view to the exploitation of prostitution, forms of sexual exploitation and assault of minors or trade in abandoned children. These forms of exploitation also include the production, sale or distribution of child-pornography material;`.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 1999.

Done at Brussels, 3 December 1998.

For the Council

The President

K. SCHLÖGL

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 1.
The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. No. 97-1575

___________

United States of America, *

Plaintiff-Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

 v. * Western District of Missouri 

Tony O. Armstrong, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

"Tony O", also known as "T", *

Defendant-Appellant. *

*

* District Court for the

*

*

___________

Submitted: September 8, 1997

 Filed: September 11, 1997

___________

Before McMillian, Bright, and Murphy, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tony Orlando Armstrong appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court for his convictions of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1

§2113 and use of a firearm in commission of a violent felony in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §924(c). Armstrong was sentenced to 188 months for the bank

robbery conviction to run concurrently with a sentence of 300 months

imposed previously for a different bank robbery in the 
 Armstrong also complains that the sentence imposed in Texas exceeded the

2

statutory maximum, but that is not a matter for this court. 

-2-

Northern District of Texas. He was also sentenced to 60 months for the

firearm violation to run consecutively to the terms for the bank robberies.

Armstrong argues that imposing a consecutive 60 month sentence for

violating 18 U.S.C. §924(c) produces a result that Congress could not have

intended because the Texas bank robbery was committed subsequent to the

§924(c) offense.2

Congress explicitly provided that using a firearm in the commission

of a violent crime carries a sentence of 60 months that may not "run

concurrently with any other term of imprisonment." 18 U.S.C. §924(c).

This language is clear and does not permit any discretion since a sentence

under §924(c) may not be concurrent with "any other term." U.S. v.

Gonzales, --- U.S. ----; 117 S.Ct. 1032, 1035 (1997); U.S. v. Murphy, 69

F.3d. 237, 244 (8th Cir. 1995). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 1920.1 Purpose.

This part governs the procedure for the granting of variations from the safety and health regulations established pursuant to section 41 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The part provides the same procedures under this Act as are available for considering variances under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).

[37 FR 10800, May 31, 1972]
#### In the Matter of the Application of The People of the State of New York, by George S. Van Schaick, as Superintendent of Insurance, Respondent, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property of the General Indemnity Corporation of America. Capital Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Argued April 21, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*511
      *Harry Green*for appellant.

*Irvin Waldman*and *Alfred C. Bennett*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Grane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lotjghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 24

- 00155

- CV
In the Interest of K.G., a Child
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022

- FAM

- 60986

- 5

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . No costs are assessed due to appellant’s inability to pay costs. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 22, 2024
§ 1406.5 Training and outreach presentations. The following Terms of Service additionally apply when the FMCS service is a training or outreach presentation. ( a ) The parties agree that they will not record any FMCS training or outreach presentation (whether delivered in-person or virtually) without the knowledge and consent of the parties and prior written approval of FMCS.
( b ) [Reserved]
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0661 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0661

**99/661/EC: Commission Decision of 9 September 1999 amending Decisions 79/491/EEC and 80/765/EEC laying down a code and standard rules for the transcription into a machine-readable form of the data of the basic surveys and the data relating to intermediate statistical surveys of areas under vines (notified under document number C(1999) 2703) **

*
Official Journal L 261 , 07/10/1999 P. 0042 - 0045 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 9 September 1999

amending Decisions 79/491/EEC and 80/765/EEC laying down a code and standard rules for the transcription into a machine-readable form of the data of the basic surveys and the data relating to intermediate statistical surveys of areas under vines

(notified under document number C(1999) 2703)

(1999/661/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 357/79 of 5 February 1979 on statistical surveys of areas under vines(1), last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2329/98(2), and in particular Article 4(2) and (4), Article 5(5) and (6) and Article 6(4) thereof,

(1) Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 357/79 provides that the Member States shall submit to the Commission the results of the basic and intermediate surveys of areas under vines by geographical unit in the form of a schedule of tables;

(2) Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 357/79 provides that those Member States which process the results of surveys of areas under vines electronically shall submit the results to the Commission in a machine-readable form;

(3) Whereas the Commission, in Decision 79/491/EEC(3) relating to the basic surveys and Decision 80/765/EEC(4) relating to the intermediate surveys has fixed and coded the geographical units into which the results of the surveys of areas under vines shall be broken down;

(4) Whereas, owing to certain changes in the geographical units within the Member States, it has proved necessary to replace Annex II of Decision 79/491/EEC and Annex II of Decision 80/765/EEC for the transmission by the Member States of the results of the basic and intermediate surveys of areas under vines;

(5) Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Owing to changes in the geographical units within the Member States, Annex II of Decision 79/491/EEC and Annex II of Decision 80/765/EEC shall be replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 September 1999.

For the Commission

Yves-Thibault de SILGUY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 54, 5.3.1979, p. 124.

(2) OJ L 291, 30.10.1998, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 129, 28.5.1979, p. 9.

(4) OJ L 213, 16.8.1980, p. 34.

ANNEX

"ANNEX II

GEOGRAPHICAL UNITS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 4(3) OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 357/79

>TABLE>"
#### State of Florida, Plaintiff in Error, v. Hugh C. Bethea, Defendant in Error.

Writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for the County of DeSoto.

Writ of error dismissed on prascipe of counsel for Plaintiff in Error.

Park Trammell, Attorney General, and H. S. Phillips, for Plaintiff in Error;

J. W. Burton, for Defendant in Error.
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1910), which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at [84 FR 21597](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1118 Inorganic arsenic.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1018 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1018).

[[61 FR 31433](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31433), June 20, 1996]
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 15-2126

___________________________ Barry Boone lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro

____________ Submitted: February 3, 2016 Filed: February 8, 2016 [Unpublished]

____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Barry Boone appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits af ter a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). For reversal , Boone argues that the ALJ’ s decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whol e, and in particular, that (1) the ALJ’s finding that Boone could perform his past relevant work (PRW) as an exterminator and quality-assurance worker is not supporte d by substantial evidence, and the error was not harmless; and (2) th e ALJ erred in discounting th e opinion of Boone’s treating physician, Samuel Burchfield, M.D. Following careful de novo revi ew, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the denial of Boone’s application. See Halverson v. Astrue , 600 F.3d 922, 927-31 (8th Cir. 2010) (sta ndard of review). We agree with Boone that substantial evidence does not s upport a finding that he could perform his PRW as an exterminator and quality-assurance worker, but Boone cannot show that the ALJ would have decided his case differen tly if the error had not occurred: the ALJ continued the sequential evaluation to find, based on the testimony of a vocational expert, that there were other jobs that a person w ith Boone’s residual functional capacity and environmental restrictions could perform. SeeByes v. Astrue , 687 F.3d 913, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2012). Further, we conclude that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Burchfield’s opinion based on its inconsistency with the physician’s medical-examination findings a nd with other medical evidence in the record as a whole. See Perkins v. Astrue , 648 F.3d 892, 897-98 (8th Cir. 2011). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, Unit ed States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
#### § 102.176 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12433]


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

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE


Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

AGENCY: General Accounting Office.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting on June 8 and 9, 2000.

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

    Board Action: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as amended in 
October 1999, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting 
Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) will meet on Thursday, June 8 from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m., and Friday, June 9, 2000 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in room 
7C13, the Elmer Staats Briefing Room, 441 G St. NW, Washington, DC.
    The purpose of the meeting is to:

Review a draft exposure draft on Stewardship Responsibilities,
Discuss Stewardship PP&E and review a draft exposure draft,
Discuss National Defense PP&E, and
Discuss other topics as necessary.

    A Steering Committee meeting of the Board's Principal Board members 
will be held immediately after the Board meeting on Friday. Topics to 
be discussed include:

Action Plan for Transition Effort (Status report and review) and
Auditing and Accounting Policy Committee (AAPC) Charter and Operating 
Procedures (review and approval).

    Any interested person may attend the meeting as an observer. Board 
discussion and reviews are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Comes, Executive Director, 441 G 
St. NW, Room 6814, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. 92-463.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Wendy M. Comes,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 00-12433 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
#### § 1202.5 Rules to govern elections.

In the conduct of a representation election, the Board shall designate who may participate in the election, which may include a public hearing on craft or class, and establish the rules to govern the election, or may appoint a committee of three neutral persons who after hearing shall within 10 days designate the employees who may participate in the election.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50501

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFREDO DIAZ-DE LEON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-2308-ALL

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

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alfredo Diaz-De

Leon raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior

conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### Seligman Trier *et al.,*App’lts, *v.*Edward Herman *et al.,*Resp’ts.1

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed June 25, 1889.)*

Judgment—Debtor and creditor—Remedy op creditor—Code Civil Pro., §§ 738, 3010.

A creditor cannot compel his debtor to give a confession of judgment, and if he cannot obtain one, he may serve a summons in an action and take judgment after a trial or by default, or he may serve a summons and complaint., and obtain an offer of judgment under Code Civil Procedure, § 738. If his practice is regular and his claim and proceedings are honest and *bona fide, no*court will deprive him of the advantage his judgment gives him.

Appeal from a judgment of the supreme court,' general term, first department, affirming an interlocutory judgment sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint.

*Alex. Rlumenstzel,*for app’lts; *Geo. H.*Yeaman, for resp’ts.

1

 Affirming 9 N. Y. State Rep., 222.

Earl, J.

A creditor may obtain a judgment against his debtor in either one of three»ways: (1). He may serve a summons in an action and take judgment after a trial or by default, and he must pursue the regular practice to that end. (2). He may serve a summons and complaint, and obtain an offer of judgment from the defendant, and upon that enter judgment under section 788 of the Code; and, if he adopts that course, he must pursue the practice prescribed; or (3), he may obtain a judgment by confession in the manner provided in section 3010, etc.," of the Code. He has the statutory right to pursue either of these methods. He may pursue one for the express purpose of avoiding the other, *553because the statute gives him the absolute choice. If his practice is regular and his claim and proceedings are honest and *bona fide,*no court will deprive him of the advantage his judgment will give him. He cannot compel his debtor to give a confession of judgment, and if he cannot obtain one, he must pursue one of the other methods.

Here there is no claim that defendants’ practice was irregular, or that the debt for which judgment was taken was not actually due, or that there was any fraud or bad faith practiced upon any one.

This case is unlike that of *White*v. *Cotzhausen*(129 U. S., 329), because in that case there was but one statute regulating the matter and that was violated ; and it is more like the case of *Beards*v. *Wheeler*(11 Hun, 539, and 76 N. Y., 213).

For these reasons and those expressed more at large in the opinion of the general term, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.
#### Black *v.*Williamson & Young.

Assumpsit.

(Decided February 10, 1917.

74 South. 397.)

Judgment; Default; Proof of Cause of Action.. — Where the action was' on the common counts, and there was no endorsement on the summons and complaint that the account sued on was verified by affidavit as required by § 2970, Code 1907, as amended, Acts 1915, p. 609, a judgment rendered by default without showing a compliance with the statute, or the execution of a writ of inquiry, or that there was on file an itemized statement verified by a competent witness under § 3971, Code 1907, was erroneous, and will be reversed.

Appeal from Geneva County Court.

Heard before Hon. A. A. Campbell.

Assumpsit by Dr. Williamson *&*Young, a partnership, against A. B. Black. Default judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

W. O. Mulkey, for appellant.

J. N. Mullins, for appellee.

PELHAM, P. J.

The transcript in this case shows that suit was brought in the county court, declaring on the common counts, by the appellee partnership against the appellant to recover a sum certain. There was no indorsement on the summons or complaint that the account sued upon was verified by affidavit, as required by statute to make it competent evidence of the correctness of the account. — Act approved September 17, 1915, amending section 3970 of the Code of 1907 (Acts 1915, p. 609).

*574Judgment by default was rendered against the appellant, and the judgment entry recites: “And this suit being based on an itemized verified statement of accounts now on file in this court, and plaintiffs’ damages therefore being certain,.it is ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs have and recover of the defendant,” etc.

The judgment was rendered without showing a compliance with the statute or the execution of a writ of inquiry, and was erroneous and must be *reversed.*— Parsons *Lumber Co. v. West Steagall G. & M. Co.,*163 Ala. 594, 50 South. 1034; *Greer & Walker, et al. v. Liipfert Scales Co.,*156 Ala. 572, 47 South. 307. There is nothing in the recital of the judgment entry that would fairly import a finding by the court of the existence of facts showing that there was on file with the clerk of the court an itemized statement of the account sued on, verified by the affidavit of a competent witness, made before and certified by a proper officer having authority under the laws of this state to take and certify affidavits, to bring it under the influence of those cases holding that such recitals in the judgment entry, under the provisions of section 3971 of the Code, dispense with the necessity of a writ of inquiry.

Reversed and remanded.