alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN M. GAITANIS, Hospitalman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

20 USCMA 11, 42 CMR 203

No. 22,909

August 7, 1970

*Captain Jeffery W. Maurer,*USMC, and *Captain Harry N. Lembeck,*USMCR, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Wayne E. Babler, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

In four separate specifications the appellant was charged with the unlawful possession of marihuana, codeine, methamphetamine, and amphetamine. He was acquitted only of possessing marihuana. The supervisory authority disapproved, however, the finding of guilty as to the possession of codeine. At the present stage of appellate review Gaitanis’s sentence consists of two months’ confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $70.00 per month for the same period. We are asked to consider whether:

> “The president of the court erred to the substantial prejudice of the accused by failing to instruct the court prior to findings and sentence to disregard evidence of misconduct not charged which was forced to the attention of the court improperly by the trial counsel.

> “Trial counsel made improper argument on the sentence.”

*12To establish the conscious possession of marihuana for which the appellant was being tried, trial counsel introduced evidence of prior use by the appellant. (Cf. United States v Alvarez, 10 USCMA 24, 27 CMR 98 (1958).) The appellant later took the stand and while denying knowledge of possession of the marihuana in question, conceded that he had used the substance on one past occasion. The president of this special court-martial did not thereafter limit the court’s consideration of this evidence on findings and sentence as is required in the trial of offenses committed before the promulgation of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969. (United States v Worley, 19 USCMA 444, 42 CMR 46 (1970).)

Did this omission harm the appellant? We think not. His previous misconduct was limited and related to the offense of which he was acquitted. (United States v Vogel, 18 USCMA 160, 39 CMR 160 (1969).) We see no conceivable injurious effect remaining on his sentence since the processes of appellate review have removed a punitive discharge and have reduced both forfeitures and confinement to a bare minimum. (United States v Flowers, 19 USCMA 473, 42 CMR 75 (1970); United States v Redd, 19 USCMA 477, 42 CMR 79 (1970).)

For the same reason we consider trial counsel’s brief reference to this evidence while arguing on sentence, a reference that was made without objection, as not having any residual effect on the sentence, even if it exceeded the limit of fair comment.

For the reasons set out above we affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
No. 57680.

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 177160-K/3471 and 181027-K/3587.

Abstract 57542. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 37 (Monday, February 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3150]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before March 28, 2007. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Alternative Creditworthiness Assessment.
    No's: 2294.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Personnel that assist in the processing 
of loan application and disbursement of loan funds to victims of 
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
    Responses: 1,849.
    Annual Burden: 8.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
 [FR Doc. E7-3150 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**ASSESSING FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE 
**A Report from the****Subcommittee on Research****Committee on Fundamental Science****National Science and Technology Council
- About the National Science and Technology Council
About the Office of Science and Technology Policy
National Science and Technology Council Commitee on Fundamental Science
National Science and Technology Council Commitee on Fundamental Science Subcommitee on Research
Special Thanks
Abstract

**Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Section I: Introduction
Section II: Assessment in the Context of GPRA
Section III: Performance Measures
Section IV: Concluding Points
References
Appendix A: Assessment Process
Appendix B: Summary of GPRA Basic Concepts
Appendix C: Assessment Examples
This document was last modified on July 9, 1996.  Please send questions/comments to srsweb@nsf.gov.******
Exhibit 99


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch  Preferred  Funding V, L.P. (the
"Partnership")  for the period ended September 27, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
John C. Stomber, Regular  Trustee of the Trust and Senior Vice President and
Treasurer of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust
    and the Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V


                              By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                              --------------------------------------------
                              Name:   John C. Stomber *
                              Title:  Regular Trustee




                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.


                               By: MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner



                               By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                               --------------------------------------------
                               Name:    John C. Stomber *
                               Title:   Senior Vice President and Treasurer


Dated: November 7, 2002
_______________________

*  John C. Stomber functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of each of the Trust and the Partnership for
   purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Exhibit 10.21

STOCK PURCHASE PLAN  OF  ROBIN HOOD MULTIFOODS INC.

ARTICLE 1  Definitions

provided,
however, that the Board in cases where its action is required, shall treat each such corporation or Division as a unit and all individuals in the employ of such corporation or Division shall
be treated uniformly. For purposes of determining continuity of employment, all of the corporations and Divisions designated in Sections 1.05(a) and 1.05(b) shall be treated as a unit. Employment
shall be deemed to be continuous (and uninterrupted) even though it shall have been interrupted by excused absence granted in writing at any time by the Employer for military service, sickness, or
such other reason or reasons as the Committee may, in its sole discretion, determine, provided that no such excused absence, except for military or other governmental service, or for service with a
corporation or Division of the type described in Section 1.05(b)(ii) or (iii) but which is not an Employer, shall have been continuous for more than one year, and provided,
further, that no such period of excused absence shall be counted in determining the number of years an Employee has been a Member unless the

1

---

Employee
returns for at least five months to the employ of the Employer following the authorized absence.

2

---

ARTICLE II  Membership

ARTICLE III  Contributions

3

---

ARTICLE IV  Investment of Funds

ARTICLE V  Member Accounts

Divide (a)

The Current Market Value of such Trust Fund as of such Valuation Date, excluding any amounts contributed with respect to the month ending on such Valuation Date;by (b)

The total number of Units of such Trust Fund then outstanding in all Member Accounts, excluding any Units attributable to contributions made with respect to the month ending on such Valuation Date.


4

---

ARTICLE VI  Vesting

Solely
for the purpose of determining the entitlement of a Member to a vested interest in Employer Units under subparagraph (a) of this Section 6.02, the period during
which any Member of this Plan is or has been a Member of the Salaried Employees' Voluntary Investment and Savings Plan of International Multifoods Corporation shall be recognized in determining the
period of membership of any Member of this Plan.



5

---



ARTICLE VII  Distributions

6

---



ARTICLE VIII  Forfeitures

ARTICLE IX  Savings Committee

9

---



10

---

ARTICLE X  Limitation of Rights and Obligations

ARTICLE XI  Restrictions on Transfer of Benefits

11

---



ARTICLE XII  Amendment

ARTICLE XIII  Termination

ARTICLE XIV  Trust Agreement

12

---

ARTICLE XV  Miscellaneous

13

---

QuickLinks
No. 58923.

protest 232241-K (New York).

#### Freund Mayer & Co., Inc., and H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of paper napkins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Freund Mayer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 123, C. A. D. 474), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

April 8, 1960

No. 64071.

protests 52872-K, etc. (Minneapolis).

#### George Benz Sons, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
----

----

I Communications

Commission

----

Communication de la Commission dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre de la directive 2004/22/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 31 mars 2004 sur les instruments de mesure (1)

[Publication des références à des documents normatifs élaborés par l'OIML et liste des parties de ces documents correspondant aux exigences essentielles (conformément à l'article 16, paragraphe 1, de la directive)]

(2006/C 269/01)

(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

MI-001:   Compteurs d'eau

en relation avec:

MI-004:   Compteurs d'énergie thermique

en relation avec:

MI-005:   Systèmes de mesurage continu et dynamique de quantités de liquides autres que l'eau

en relation avec:

MI-006, CHAPITRE II:   Trieurs-étiqueteurs à fonctionnement automatique

en relation avec:

MI-006, CHAPITRE III:   Instruments de remplissage gravimétrique automatique

en relation avec:

MI-006, CHAPITRE IV:   Totalisateurs discontinus

en relation avec:

MI-006, CHAPITRE V:   Totalisateurs continus

en relation avec:

MI-006, CHAPITRE VI:   Ponts-bascules ferroviaires automatiques

en relation avec:

MI-008, CHAPITRE II:   Mesures de capacité à servir

en relation avec:

MI-009, CHAPITRE II:   Instruments de mesure de longueur

en relation avec:

MI-009, CHAPITRE III:   Instruments de mesure de surface

en relation avec:

(NB: OIML R136-1 concerne seulement la détermination de la surface du cuir tandis que l'annexe MI-009 ne se limite pas au cuir.)

MI-009, CHAPITRE IV:   Instruments de mesure multidimensionnelle

en relation avec:

MI-010:   Analyse de gaz d'échappement

en relation avec:

----

(1)JO L 135 du 30.4.2004, p. 1.

----
No. 61324.

protest 210134-K (New York).

#### Abels Wasserberg & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0878 GEB DAD P

vs.

C/O KISSENGER, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 20, 2007, plaintiff filed

numerous discovery requests. On February 22, 2007, defendants filed a motion for a protective

order and requested the court strike plaintiff’s February 20, 2007 discovery requests from the

docket as premature. Specifically, defendants argue that because findings and recommendations

are pending before the assigned district judge recommending that several of plaintiff’s claims be

dismissed, no answer has been filed and a discovery order has not been issued by the court,

plaintiff’s discovery requests are premature Defendants’ motion will be granted in part. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 60 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ February 22, 2007 motion for a protective order is granted in part. 

Defendants are required to respond to all relevant discovery requests 45 days after this court

issues a discovery order; and

2. Defendants’ February 22, 2007 request to strike plaintiff’s February 20, 2007

discovery requests from the docket is denied.

DATED: February 27, 2007.

DAD:9

davi0878.po 

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 60 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018142EN.01000702.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ZPT’ AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-518/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 - Article 35 TFEU - De minimis aid in the form of tax relief - National legislation excluding investments in the production of goods intended for export from the benefit of that tax relief))

(2018/C 142/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘ZPT’ AD

Applicant:

Defendants: Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Consideration of the third part of the third question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] to de minimis aid. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Consideration of the third part of the third question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] to de minimis aid.

| 2) | Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation No 1998/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude investments in assets used for export-related activities from the benefit of tax relief constituting de minimis aid. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation No 1998/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude investments in assets used for export-related activities from the benefit of tax relief constituting de minimis aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

1

---
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP06-200-019] 

      ( print page 8721)    
Take notice that on February 16, 2007 Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (REX) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 22, to be effective February 17, 2007. 

REX stated that a copy of this filing has been served upon all parties to this proceeding, REX's customers, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the Wyoming Public Service Commission. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7-3351 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Dock McNeely,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0062 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Lou Blanas, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoMarch 16, 2005, an order served on plaintiff was returned by

the postal service as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to

comply with Local Rule 83-182(f), which requires that a party

appearing pro se inform the court of any address change.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that this action be

dismissed without prejudice. L.R. 83-183(b) (dismissal

appropriate where pro se plaintiff fails to notify court of

current address within 60 days of return of mail by U.S. Postal

Service). 

Case 2:04-cv-00062-DFL -PAN Document 52 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00062-DFL -PAN Document 52 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 51379.

#### Protests 854850-G, etc., of Arkwright Merchandising Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
NUMBER 13

- 10

- 00 253

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DAVID WAYNE BAILEY

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 36 th District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ro driguez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, David Wayne Bailey , by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to

dismiss his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,2

a nd our mandate will issue forthwith. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

18th day of November, 2010

.
Case No. 15,031.

#### UNITED STATES v. EIGHT CASKS OF WHISKEY.

[See Case No. 15,030.]