alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22763]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12221]

Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Conservation and Exhibition--Determinations: ``On Thin 
Ice: Dutch Depictions of Extreme Weather'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for 
temporary conservation and display in the exhibition ``On Thin Ice: 
Dutch Depictions of Extreme Weather'' at the J. Paul Getty Museum at 
the Getty Center, Los Angeles, California, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural 
significance, and, further, that their temporary conservation and 
exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Nicole L. Elkon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2023-22763 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
No. 67649.

#### Hou-Tex Peanut Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 269360-KS (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P66/270. —

#### Davis Products, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 64/25764 (Los Angeles).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of swim rings and swim aids similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davis*Products, *Inc.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 159, Abstract 67862) and *Davis*Products, *Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 311, Abstract 68428), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Official Journal C 123/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 123 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 505 June 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 123

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 505 June 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 123/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4300 — Philips/Intermagnetics) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 123/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4300 — Philips/Intermagnetics) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 123/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 123/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 123/03 | Call for expression of interest addressed to individuals for the establishment of a database of prospective independent experts to assist the Commission's services for tasks in connection with the ICT Policy Support Programme of CIP (Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme) | 3 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 123/04 | Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping and countervailing measures | 6 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 123/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4714 — Oaktree/Duquesne/TI Automotive) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 7 |
| 2007/C 123/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4650 — Porsche/Volkswagen) (1) | 8 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2007/C 123/03

Call for expression of interest addressed to individuals for the establishment of a database of prospective independent experts to assist the Commission's services for tasks in connection with the ICT Policy Support Programme of CIP (Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme)

3

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

Commission

2007/C 123/04

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping and countervailing measures

6

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2007/C 123/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4714 — Oaktree/Duquesne/TI Automotive) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

7

2007/C 123/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4650 — Porsche/Volkswagen) (1)

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MBNA AMERICA BANK NA, AS

TRUSTEE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(IRS), and ROES and DOES I through CM,

inclusive,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Barbara Joan; Kenaston,

Defendant.

Case No. MS05-5042FDB

ORDER OF REMAND

Defendant purports to remove this case from Kitsap County Superior Court asserting that it

was filed there on September 18, 2005, that it became removable in October “because subject matter

jurisdiction has been challenged and has not been answered on record,” and that this court has

diversity jurisdiction over this matter. 

Defendant Kenaston has made no showing that this matter of either timely nor appropriately

removed. Moreover, this matter cannot be filed as a miscellaneous case. 

IT IS ORDERED: this cause of action is REMANDED to Kitsap County Superior Court. 

DATED this 22nd day of December, 2005.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-mc-05042-FDB Document 3 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

November 19, 1962

No. 67202.

protests 61/5015, etc. (Tampa).

#### Jng. G. McGiffin et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, G.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 09/09-0496]

                    Notice is hereby given that HCAP Partners V, L.P., 4250 Executive Square, Suite 500, La Jolla, CA 92037, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concerns, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflict of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). HCAP Partners V, L.P. (“HCAP V”) is proposing to provide financing to Cubex                           ( print page 69981)                        LLC (“Company”) to support the Company's growth.                

The proposed transaction is brought within the purview of § 107.730 of the Regulations because HCAP Partners III, L.P. (“HCAP III”), an Associate of HCAP V by virtue of Common Control as defined in § 107.50, holds a 21% of equity interest in the Company. By virtue of HCAP III's equity ownership, the Company and HCAP V are also Associates. HCAP III expects to receive $18.6 million from the proposed transaction.

Therefore, the proposed transaction requires a regulatory exemption pursuant to 13 CFR 107.730. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

Bailey DeVries,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration.

[FR Doc. 2023-22431 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
# Official Journal C 512I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 512I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6420 December 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 512I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6420 December 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 512 I/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10536 – TOTALENERGIES / THREE GORGES CORPORATION / JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 512 I/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10536 – TOTALENERGIES / THREE GORGES CORPORATION / JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2021/C 512 I/02 | Council Conclusions on strengthening the European Health Union | 2 |
| 2021/C 512 I/03 | Council Decision of 23 November 2021 appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority | 12 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2021/C 512 I/02

Council Conclusions on strengthening the European Health Union

2

2021/C 512 I/03

Council Decision of 23 November 2021 appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority

12

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 2 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 3 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 4 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 5 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 6 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 7 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 8 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 9 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 10 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 11 of 12
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-6 Filed 11/01/12 Page 12 of 12
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 11 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.11
                                      Agreed to January 19, 1999        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

                          Concurrent Resolution

 

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Tuesday, January 
19, 1999, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 2, 
1999.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher Dee MILLER, aka Christipher Miller, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-50422.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., David K. Willingham, Esq., David A. Kettel, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gail Ivens, Esq., Glendale, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*619Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Dee Miller appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for fraudulent transactions with access device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the restitution order and remand the sentence.

Miller contends that the district court erred by including a $73,491.17 amount of loss in his restitution order. Because Miller did not object to the restitution order in the district court, we review for plain error, *see United States v. Zink,*107 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir.1997), and conclude that the district court properly relied on evidence submitted by the government to determine the amount of restitution required. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) (“Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.”); *see also United States v. Rutgard,*116 F.3d 1270, 1294 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that restitution may be ordered for losses to persons harmed by defendant’s scheme even beyond the counts of conviction); *see, e.g. United States v. Bussell,*414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that orders of restitution are unaffected by *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s restitution order.

Next, Miller contends that the district court erred in basing his sentence, in part, on an incorrect calculation of loss amount to his victims. We need not address this issue. Miller’s sentence was imposed at a time when the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory. Because the guidelines are now purely advisory, *see United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-67, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we remand so the district court can determine if Miller should receive a different sentence under the advisory Guidelines system. *See United States v. Hermoso-Garcia,*413 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005).

RESTITUTION ORDER AFFIRMED and SENTENCE REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40340

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BILLY JUNE STIFF,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 94-CR-15-1

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 18, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Court-appointed counsel for Billy June Stiff has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

We have independently reviewed counsel's brief, the points raised

by Stiff in response to that brief, and the record, and found no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 26, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00786

- CV

Charles J. Williamson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR , PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s

summary ju dgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the summary

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. It FURTHER appearing that the appellant is

indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and th at this decision

be certified below for observance.
July 1, 2015

Mr. Anthony Gallo

AirCam Productions, LLC

P

. O

. Box 26550

Austin, TX 78755

Dear Mr. Gallo:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 61.113(a) and (b)

, 91.119(c)

, 91.151(a)

, 91.405(a)

, 407(a)(1)

, 409(a)(2) , and 417(a) and (b)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 d ays.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request on behalf of AirCam Productions, LLC into the public

docket (No. FAA− 2015

− 1205 ) on April 27, 2015 , but we are unable to process your request

any further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the

following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the p ublic as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Pleas e note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notify ing you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

B rittany New ton

Program Analyst

, Air men and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 58326.

protests 155879-K/2489 and 145163-K/2006 (Chicago).

#### American Express Company and International Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the toilet paper in rolls the subject of *Douglas Paper Co.*v. *United States*(30 Oust. Ct. 87, C. D. 1501), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 28, 2024

NO. 03-22-00337-CR

James Logan Diez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in 

the judgments. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40050

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODOLFO LUCERO-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-1197-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodolfo LuceroRodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lucero-Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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

October 31, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40050 Document: 00513739950 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2016
No. 16-40050

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40050 Document: 00513739950 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2016