alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 12008E316 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E316

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - TITLE II: FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - Chapter 3: The Union's annual budget - Article 316 (ex Article 271 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0185 - 0185 *

Article 316

(ex Article 271 TEC)

In accordance with conditions to be laid down pursuant to Article 322, any appropriations, other than those relating to staff expenditure, that are unexpended at the end of the financial year may be carried forward to the next financial year only.

Appropriations shall be classified under different chapters grouping items of expenditure according to their nature or purpose and subdivided in accordance with the regulations made pursuant to Article 322.

The expenditure of the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be set out in separate parts of the budget, without prejudice to special arrangements for certain common items of expenditure.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 665.622 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 55046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7946]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to 
request approval on a new and/or currently approved information 
collection.

DATES: Submit comments on or before November 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments regarding whether these information 
collections are necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are 
ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the 
collections, to Gail Hepler, Chief 7a Loan Policy Branch, Office of 
Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 
SW., Suite 8300, Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Hepler, Chief 7a Loan Policy 
Branch, Office of Financial Assistance 202-205-7530 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8bfb9b1b4f6b0bda8b4bdaa98abbab9f6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3d4d2dadf9ddbd6c3dfd6c1f3c0d1d29dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a> 
or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7c4d2d5d3ced489d5cec4cfe7d4c5c689c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81e2f4f3f5e8f2aff3e8e2e9c1f2e3e0afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title: ``Gulf Coast Relief Financing Pilot Information 
Collection''.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business devastated by Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita.
    Form Nos: 2276 A/B/C, 2281, 2282.
    Annual Responses: 500.
    Annual Burden: 375.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
 [FR Doc. 06-7946 Filed 9-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from EDG Capital,
Inc. financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              13,474
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    13,474
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      13,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                7,658
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               243
<OTHER-SE>                                           5,573
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        13,474
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (15,712)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (70)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (15,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (15,642)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.08)



</TABLE>
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10023 C onfer enc e C al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. O T H N IE L M C K IN N E Y , S R ., D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 93- C R - 29- 16 B ef ore W IE N E R , B E N AV ID E S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * O t hni elM c K i nney, Sr. , fede r al pri so ner # 24693- 077, w as c onvi c t ed bya j u ryof on e cou n t of con sp i ra c yt o d i strib u te an dto po sse ss w i thi n ten t t o di st r ibut e c oc ai ne bas e (crack) , and he w as s ent enc ed t o li fe i n pri so n. That s e nt e nc e w as r e duc e d i n 1 99 6 t o 3 60 m o nt hs f o l l o w i ng am e ndm e nt s t o t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s i m po s i ng a m ax i m um b as e o f fe ns e l e ve lo f

3 8 f o rdr ug of fen ses. B ased on 200 7 am en dm en t s t o t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es t h at l ow ered United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 10023

2 base of fen se l evel s f

or c rack cocai n e of

fen ses, M cK in n e ym ovedf or another r e duc t i o n pu r s uantt o 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 58 2(c ) ( 2) . The di s t r i c tc ou rtd e ni e d the m oti on on the ba sis th a t M cK i n n ey ’ s b a se of fen se l ev el rem a i n ed 3 8 ev en w i th t he am endm ent s. M c K i nney now appeal s, a rgui ng t hatt he di st r i c tc our thad th e a u th o rityinli g h t of Un i t ed S t ate s v . B ooker , 54 3 U . S . 22 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ), an di ts pro ge ny t o r e duc e hi s s e nt e nc e no t w i t hs t and i ng t he c o nt r ar y po l i c y s t at e m e nt se touti n U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10. W e r e c e nt l y r ej e c t e d m at e r i all y i n di st i ngu i s hab l e a r gum e nt s i n Un i t ed S ta tes v. D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3 d2 3 5 , 2 3 6 -3 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or c ert . f

i led ( S ept. 21, 200 9) ( N o. 09-66 5 7) . A ccor di n gl y, t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourt i s A F F I RMED.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23

- 0046

_________________ ST AND UP MONTANA, a Montana non

- profit Corporation; CLINTON DECKER; MORGEN HUNT; GABRIEL EARLE; ERICK PRATHER; BRADFORD CAMPBELL; MEAGAN CAMPBELL; AMY ORR and JARED ORR,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. MISSOULA COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ELEMENTARY DISTRICT NO. 1, HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, MISSOULA COUNTY, STATE OF MONTANA; TARGET RANGE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23; and HELLGATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five

- justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Jason Marks , District Judge

. For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 27 2023

09/27/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0046
Order: 2011

- 11

- 14 

### Served: November 14, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 1 4 th of November, 2011

Essential Air Service at

DODGE CITY, KA NSAS GARDEN CITY, KANSAS GREAT BEND, KANSAS HAYS, KANSAS LIBERAL, KANSAS

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. Docket OST

- 1998

- 3502

Docket OST 1998

- 3503

Docket OST 1998

- 3496

Docket OST 1998

- 3497

Docket OST 1998

- 3498

O RDER

By Order 2011

- 10

- 24, October 31, the Department directed the parties to show cause by November 10, why we should not select American Eagle Airlines to provide essential air

service at Garden C ity, as described in Appendix C, and Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., to provide essential air servic e at Dodge City, Great Bend, Hays, and Liberal, Kansas, as described in Appendix C of that order. The order delegated authority to the Director, Office of Aviation Analysis, to make the order final.

The ten days have expired, and no objections have bee n filed, and we hereby make

Order 2011

- 10

- 24 final.

TODD M. HOMAN

Director Office of Aviation Analysis (SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulatio ns.gov
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                     CONSENT OF T. J. SMITH & COMPANY, INC.




March 7, 2000

The Meridian Resource Corporation
1401 Enclave Parkway, Suite 300
Houston, TX  77077

Re:  Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers

Gentlemen:

         We hereby consent to the references to our reviews dated February 25,
1999 and February 15, 2000, which were used to prepare the Estimated Future
Reserves Attributable to Certain Leasehold Interests of The Meridian Resource
Corporation as of December 31, 1998 and December 31, 1999, respectively, in your
Form 10-K and to the reference to T. J. Smith & Company, Inc. as experts in the
field of petroleum engineering.


                                           Very truly yours,

                                           T. J. Smith & Company, Inc.




                                            By:
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                 T. J. Smith, P.E.
# EUR-Lex - 12006E041 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E041

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE III - Free movement of persons, services and capital - Chapter 1 - Workers - Article 41 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0058 - 0058 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0052 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0194 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0021 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 41

Member States shall, within the framework of a joint programme, encourage the exchange of young workers.

--------------------------------------------------
* 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

June 29, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50877

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JERRY LEE MASSEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:02-CR-661-All

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Lee Massey appeals from his conviction for possession

with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A). 

Massey argues that the Government was bound to prove as an

element of the offense that he knew the drug quantity of the

controlled substance. However, we are not convinced that either

the indictment nor the jury charge, when read as a whole and in the

context of the trial, required the jury to find knowledge of drug
No. 05-50877

-2-

quantity as an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841. See

United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 2003).

Massey additionally argues that the evidence was insufficient

to prove that he knowingly possessed with intent to distribute more

than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Massey failed to move for a

judgment of acquittal at the close of all evidence. Accordingly,

“review is limited to determining whether there was a manifest

miscarriage of justice, that is, whether the record is devoid of

evidence pointing to guilt.” United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d

264, 274 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotations marks

omitted). 

Massey readily admits that he knowingly possessed a controlled

substance with the intent to distribute it. His contention that

the evidence was insufficient to prove his knowing possession of a

particular quantity is misguided: knowledge of quantity is not an

element of an offense under 

§ 841(a) and was not made the law of the case in this instance.

Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d at 700.

Massey also asserts that the district court improperly

permitted the Government to argue that the jury could consider

incidents not alleged in the indictment to determine whether Massey

possessed with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of

marijuana. Any error was not prejudicial. The court specifically

charged the jury not to consider such extraneous evidence.

Moreover, the strength of the evidence in support of Massey’s guilt
No. 05-50877

-3-

was overwhelming. Thus, Massey has not established that the

challenged statements constituted improper remarks that prejudiced

his substantive rights. United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 414-

15 (5th Cir. 1998). AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 12007L/AFI/DCL/40 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12007L/AFI/DCL/40

**Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 - A. Declarations concerning provisions of the Treaties - 40. Declaration on Article 280 D of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union **

*
Official Journal 306 , 17/12/2007 P. 0262 - 0262 *

40. Declaration on Article 280 D of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference declares that Member States may indicate, when they make a request to establish enhanced cooperation, if they intend already at that stage to make use of Article 280 H providing for the extension of qualified majority voting or to have recourse to the ordinary legislative procedure.

--------------------------------------------------
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0001392

31-JUL-2014

08:03 AM
# EUR-Lex - 12004V094 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V094

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART II — THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE UNION - TITLE IV — SOLIDARITY - Article II-94 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0048 - 0049 *

Article II-94

Social security and social assistance

1. The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.

2. Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security benefits and social advantages in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices.

3. In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.

--------------------------------------------------
Argued and submitted January 19,

reversed and remanded February 16, 1994

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Appellant, v.*TONY ALLEN BARKER, *Respondent.*

(TC91-13211; CA A72705)

868 P2d 1355

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

No appearance for respondent.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Richardson, Chief Judge, and Riggs, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*410PER CURIAM

The state appeals the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests because of the officer’s failure to advise him of the consequences of refusing to perform the tests, as required by ORS 813.135 and ORS 813.136. Failure to advise a defendant of the consequences of refusal is not a basis to suppress evidence of the tests, provided that they were otherwise voluntarily performed. *State v. Trenary,*316 Or 172, 850 P2d 356 (1993). The trial court concluded here that the tests were voluntarily performed. Accordingly, it erred in granting the motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded.
§ 214.7 Levels of review. ( a ) *Appeal.* ( 1 ) One level of appeal is available for appealable decisions made by District Rangers, Forest or Grassland Supervisors, and Regional Foresters. If a District Ranger is the Responsible Official, the appeal is filed with the Forest or Grassland Supervisor. If a Forest or Grassland Supervisor is the Responsible Official, the appeal is filed with the Regional Forester. If a Regional Forester is the Responsible Official, the appeal is filed with the Chief of the Forest Service.
( 2 ) No appeal is available for decisions made by the Chief.
( b ) *Discretionary review.* ( 1 ) Appeal decisions issued by Forest or Grassland Supervisors, Regional Foresters, or the Chief are eligible for discretionary review. If a Forest or Grassland Supervisor is the Appeal Deciding Officer, discretionary review is conducted by the Regional Forester. If a Regional Forester is the Appeal Deciding Officer, discretionary review is conducted by the Chief. If the Chief is the Appeal Deciding Officer, discretionary review is conducted by the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.
( 2 ) Decisions made by the Chief that fall into one of the categories enumerated in 36 CFR 214.4 are eligible for discretionary review by the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.
# EUR-Lex - 12007L/AFI/DCL/47 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12007L/AFI/DCL/47

**Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 - B. Declarations concerning Protocols annexed to the Treaties - 47. Declaration on Article 5(3), (4) and (5) of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union **

*
Official Journal 306 , 17/12/2007 P. 0264 - 0264 *

47. Declaration on Article 5(3), (4) and (5) of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union

The Conference notes that the conditions to be determined in the decision referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 or 5 of Article 5 of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union may determine that the Member State concerned shall bear the direct financial consequences, if any, necessarily and unavoidably incurred as a result of the cessation of its participation in some or all of the acquis referred to in any decision taken by the Council pursuant to Article 4 of the said Protocol.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E/AFI/DCL/35 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E/AFI/DCL/35

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - DECLARATIONS annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 - A. DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES - 35. Declaration on Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0349 - 0349 *

35. Declaration on Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference believes that Article 194 does not affect the right of the Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure their energy supply under the conditions provided for in Article 347.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 91.1 Purpose of regulations. ( a ) The purpose of these regulations is to establish procedures for selecting a design that will be used for the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Federal Duck Stamp).
( b ) All individuals entering the contest must comply with these regulations. A copy of the regulations, along with the Reproduction Rights Agreement and Display and Participation Agreement, may be requested from the Federal Duck Stamp Office at the address for the Division of Bird Habitat Conservation provided at 50 CFR 2.1(b). These documents can also be downloaded from our website at: *http://www.fws.gov/birds/get-involved/duck-stamp.php*.
( c ) All contestants from the most recent contest will be sent a copy of the regulations, the Display and Participation Agreement, and the Reproduction Rights Agreement.
[56 FR 22815, May 16, 1991, as amended at 71 FR 39014, July 11, 2006; 79 FR 43967, July 29, 2014; 83 FR 12279, Mar. 21, 2018]