alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 12008M031 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008M031

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE V: GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY - Chapter 2: Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy - Section 1: Common provisions - Article 31 (ex Article 23 TEU) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0033 - 0034 *

Article 31

(ex Article 23 TEU)

1. Decisions under this Chapter shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded.

When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall not be adopted.

2. By derogation from the provisions of paragraph 1, the Council shall act by qualified majority:

- when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position on the basis of a decision of the European Council relating to the Union's strategic interests and objectives, as referred to in Article 22(1),

- when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position, on a proposal which the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has presented following a specific request from the European Council, made on its own initiative or that of the High Representative,

- when adopting any decision implementing a decision defining a Union action or position,

- when appointing a special representative in accordance with Article 33.

If a member of the Council declares that, for vital and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The High Representative will, in close consultation with the Member State involved, search for a solution acceptable to it. If he does not succeed, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for a decision by unanimity.

3. The European Council may unanimously adopt a decision stipulating that the Council shall act by a qualified majority in cases other than those referred to in paragraph 2.

4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

5. For procedural questions, the Council shall act by a majority of its members.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 1212.301 [Reserved]
#### § 1235.40 What records are covered by additional transfer requirements?

In addition to complying with subparts A and B of this part, agencies must follow the specifications and requirements in this subpart when transferring audiovisual, cartographic, architectural, and electronic records to the National Archives of the United States. In general, such records must be transferred to the National Archives of the United States as soon as they become inactive or whenever the agency cannot provide proper care and handling of the records, including adequate storage conditions (see parts 1236 and 1237 of this subchapter).
# EUR-Lex - 11992E093 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992E093

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - TITLE V : COMMON RULES ON COMPETITION TAXATION AND APPROXIMATION OF LAWS - CHAPITRE 1 : RULES OF COMPETITION - SECTION 3 : AIDES GRANTED BY STATES - ARTICLE 93 /* CODIFIED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY */ **

*
Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0030 *

Article 93

1. The Commission shall, in cooperation with Member States, keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States. It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the common market.

2. If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 92, or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission.

If the State concerned does not comply with this decision within the prescribed time, the Commission or any other interested State may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 169 and 170, refer the matter to the Court of Justice direct.

On application by a Member State, the Council, may, acting unanimously, decide that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the common market, in derogation from the provisions of Article 92 or from the regulations provided for in Article 94, if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances. If, as regards the aid in question, the Commission has already initiated the procedure provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the fact that the State concerned has made its application to the Council shall have the effect of suspending that procedure until the Council has made its attitude known.

If, however, the Council has not made its attitude known within three months of the said application being made, the Commission shall give its decision on the case.

3. The Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 92, it shall without delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.
§ 1239.3 What definitions apply to this part? ( a ) See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in part 1239.
( b ) As used in part 1239—
*Inspection* means a formal review and report by NARA under 44 U.S.C. 2904(c) and 2906(a) of an agency's recordkeeping processes that focus on significant records management problems affecting records at risk that meet one or more of the following criteria: ( 1 ) Have a direct and high impact on legal rights or government accountability;
( 2 ) Are the subject of high profile litigation, Congressional attention, or widespread media coverage;
( 3 ) Have high research potential; or
( 4 ) Are permanent records with a large volume, regardless of format.
consulting ♦ training ♦ data systems

www.ZephyrEnv.com ♦ www.HazMatAcademy.com

2600 Via Fortuna, Suite 450 ♦ Austin, Texas 78746 ♦ PH 512.329.5544 ♦ FAX 512.329.8253

May 13, 2014 via electronic mail

Mr. Wren Stenger

Division Director

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

U.S. EPA Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

RE: Greenhouse Gas Permit Application

Invenergy Thermal Development LLC

Ector County Energy Center

Goldsmith, Ector County, Texas

Dear Mr. Stenger:

In response to your letter to Jim Shield of Invenergy Thermal Development, dated 3/27/2014,

regarding the GHG permitting authority for the Ector County Energy Center, Invenergy Thermal 

Development LLC (Invenergy) wishes to proceed with the EPA as the permitting authority.

Should you have any questions regarding this application, please contact me at 

bosborne@zephyrenv.com, or 512-579-3815, or Mr. Matthew Thornton of Invenergy Thermal 

Development LLC, at mthornton@invenergyllc.com at 312-582-1527.

Sincerely,

Zephyr Environmental Corporation

Bryan Osborne

Project Manager

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Jeff Robinson, EPA Region 6

Mr. Dan Ewan, Invenergy LLC

Mr. Matt Thornton, Invenergy LLC

Mr. Mike Wilson, TCEQ Air Permits
#### Rastus S. Ransom, as Trustee for Mary F. Welch, Appellant, *v.*The Nassau Trust Company of the City of Brooklyn, Respondent.

(Argued April 22, 1907;

decided May 7, 1907.)

*Ransom*v. *Nassau Trust Co.,*107 App. Div. 624, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered Sep*613tember 5, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover for an alleged, conversion of trust funds.

*Raphael J. Moses*for appellant.

*W. O. Percy*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight and W erner, J J. Not sitting: W illard Bartlett, J. Absent: Hiscock, J.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

February 13, 2017

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

Nos. 15-2204 & 16-1864

MARGARITA DEL PILAR FITZPATRICK,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF SESSIONS, Attorney General of the United

States,

Respondent.

Petitions for Review of 

Orders of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals.

No. A097 846 616

Order

The opinion of this court issued today, February 13, 2017, is amended as 

follows:

Page 2, line 7 from the bottom, “when response” should be “when in 

response”.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 Company
 (i)
    
    the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: March 31, 2006
    /s/ John F. GarberJohn F. GarberChief Financial Officer
§ 214.18 Appeal decision. ( a ) Appeal decisions made by the Appeal Deciding Officer shall be issued within 30 days of the date the appeal record is closed.
( b ) The appeal decision shall be based solely on the appeal record and oral presentation, if one is conducted.
( c ) The appeal decision shall conform to all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures.
( d ) The appeal decision may affirm or reverse the appealable decision, in whole or in part. The appeal decision must specify the basis for affirmation or reversal and may include instructions for further action by the Responsible Official.
( e ) Except where a decision to conduct discretionary review has been made and a discretionary review decision has been issued, the appeal decision shall constitute USDA's final administrative decision.
# EUR-Lex - 12006E072 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E072

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE V - Transport - Article 72 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0071 - 0071 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0062 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0205 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0027 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 72

Until the provisions referred to in Article 71(1) have been laid down, no Member State may, without the unanimous approval of the Council, make the various provisions governing the subject on 1 January 1958 or, for acceding States, the date of their accession less favourable in their direct or indirect effect on carriers of other Member States as compared with carriers who are nationals of that State.

--------------------------------------------------
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 786 -CV In re Rita K

ing ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M HAY S COUNTY M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N We d e ny Rita Ki ng ’s pe tit ion

fo r wri t of

mand amus .

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Filed: January

26, 2007
#### § 13.906 Unattended or abandoned property.

Leaving unattended and abandoned property along the road corridor, at Wonder Lake, and in the areas included in the backcountry management plan, is prohibited.
§ 218.5 Who may file an objection. ( a ) Individuals and entities as defined in § 218.2 who have submitted timely, specific written comments regarding a proposed project or activity that is subject to these regulations during any designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection. Opportunity for public comment on a draft EIS includes request for comments during scoping, the 40 CFR 1506.10 comment period, or other public involvement opportunity where written comments are requested by the responsible official. Opportunity for public comment on an EA includes during scoping or any other instance where the responsible official seeks written comments.
( b ) Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations are also eligible to file an objection when specific written comments as defined in § 218.2 are provided during Federal-Tribal consultations.
( c ) Comments received from an authorized representative(s) of an entity are considered those of the entity only. Individual members of that entity do not meet objection eligibility requirements solely on the basis of membership in an entity. A member or an individual must submit timely, specific written comments independently in order to be eligible to file an objection in an individual capacity.
( d ) When an objection lists multiple individuals or entities, each individual or entity must meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If the objection does not identify a lead objector as required at § 218.8(d)(3), the reviewing officer will delegate the first eligible objector on the list as the lead objector. Individuals or entities listed on an objection that do not meet eligibility requirements will not be considered objectors. Objections from individuals or entities that do not meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section will not be accepted and will be documented as such in the objection record.
( e ) Federal agencies may not file objections.
( f ) Federal employees who otherwise meet the requirements of this subpart for filing objections in a non-official capacity must comply with Federal conflict of interest statutes at 18 U.S.C. 202-209 and with employee ethics requirements at 5 CFR part 2635. Specifically, employees must not be on official duty nor use Government property or equipment in the preparation or filing of an objection. Further, employees must not use or otherwise incorporate information unavailable to the public, such as Federal agency documents that are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)).
Affirmed and Memorandum Majority Opinion and Memorandum 

Concurring Opinions filed October 27, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00128-CV

CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant

V.

JIMMIE LEE JONES JUNIOR, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1158605

M E M O R A N D U M C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

I agree with the court’s judgment affirming the denial of the city’s motion 

for summary judgment. I do not join the majority opinion, however, because I do 

not agree with the court’s discussion and analysis of the good faith issue. Instead, I 

would hold that a genuine and material fact question exists as to whether Sergeant 

Kim was engaged in a discretionary duty. It is unnecessary to address the good 
2

faith element of official immunity in this case. For these reasons, I concur in the 

judgment only. 

/s/ Kevin Jewell

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Hassan. (Hassan, J., majority)
The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2525

___________

Bahiya Hiba Shakur, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 15, 1997

 Filed: April 17, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bahiya Hiba Shakur appeals from the denial by the District Court of 1

her motion seeking the return of forfeited property pursuant to Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e). Having carefully reviewed the record and

Shakur’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the District Court correctly

denied relief. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.

47B. We also deny Shakur’s motion for appointment of counsel and for oral

argument.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 1421 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 177 - AD
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION    WASHINGTON,D.C.

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Eric J. Poggemiller March 5, 2024 

Rouse, Frets & Davison, LLC 

700 S. Riverside Rd., Suite 200 

St. Joseph, MO 64507 

epoggemiller@jdavisonlaw.com 

RE: MUR 8058

Dear Mr. Poggemiller: 

On August 26, 2022, the Federal Election Commission notified your clients, SQI Limited, 

LLC (“SQI”), Herzog Contracting Corp., Herzog Transit Services, Inc., and Herzog Technologies, 

Inc. (collectively, the “Herzog Affiliates”), of a Complaint indicating violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. A copy of the Complaint was forwarded to your 

clients at that time. 

The Commission considered the Complaint, but there was an insufficient number of votes 

to (1) find reason to believe that SQI violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by knowingly permitting its name 

to be used to make a contribution in the name of another and (2) take no action at this time with 

respect to the allegation that the Herzog Affiliates violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by making a 

contribution in the name of another. The Commission then voted to dismiss the Complaint in this

matter. Accordingly, the Commission voted to close the file on February 29, 2024. One or more 

Statements of Reasons providing a basis for the Commission’s decision will follow. 

Documents related to the case will be placed on the public record within 30 days. See 

Disclosure of Certain Documents in Enforcement and Other Matters, 81 Fed. Reg. 50,702 (Aug. 2, 

2016). 

If you have any questions, please contact Justine A. di Giovanni, the attorney assigned to 

this matter, at (202) 694-1574. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Allen 

Assistant General Counsel

MUR805800133
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50046 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RICARDO TORREZ, a/k/a Chicken Man, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-95-CA-329
- - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ricardo Torrez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Torrez contends that the civil forfeiture of his property, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(6) and (a)(7), violates his Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy.No. 96-50046 - 2 - There is no merit to his contention of double jeopardy based upon

the civil forfeiture of property to the Government. See United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2147-49 (1996). AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2018

No. 04-18-00723-CR

Michael P. CARACHEO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR17-040

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states the underlying case “is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The trial court’s judgment, however, recites 

appellant pled not guilty and was found guilty by a jury. Accordingly, the trial court’s 

certification of defendant’s right of appeal is defective. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Sanchez v. State, 109 S.W.3d 760 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no 

pet.). It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court amend the certification and cause the trial 

court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the amended certification within 

twenty days from the date of this order.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 26th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
§ 1002.61 Residing on Federal lands. ( a ) Residing within the area administered by the Presidio Trust, other than on privately owned lands, except pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit, lease or contract, is prohibited.
( b ) Violation of the terms and conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 2, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00109

- CV

CHIMAX AUTO SALES INCORPORATED

, Appellant

v.

Robert GONZALEZ and Marisol Rodriguez,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CV01659

Honorable John Longoria , Judge Presiding

ORDER

T his appeal is DISMISSED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). C osts are taxed against the

appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d).

It is so ORDERED on June 2, 2021

.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

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

court on thi s 2nd day of June, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
# EUR-Lex - 12006E162 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E162

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE XVII - Economic and social cohesion - Article 162 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0120 - 0120 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0105 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0251 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0050 - Consolidated version *

Article 162

Implementing decisions relating to the European Regional Development Fund shall be taken by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

With regard to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section, and the European Social Fund, Articles 37 and 148 respectively shall continue to apply.

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