alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6368]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and 
Dentistry; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), notice is hereby given of the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine 
and Dentistry.
    Date and Time: May 17, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. and May 18, 
2007, 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.,
    Place: Hilton Washington, DC/Rockville Executive Meeting Center, 
1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.
    Purpose: The Advisory Committee provides advice and 
recommendations on a broad range of issues dealing with programs and 
activities authorized under section 747 of the Public Health Service 
Act as amended by The Health Professions Education Partnership Act 
of 1998, Public Law 105-392. At this meeting the Advisory Committee 
will begin work on its seventh report which will be submitted to 
Congress and to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services.
    Agenda: The meeting on Thursday, May 17 will begin with opening 
comments from the Chair of the Advisory Committee and introductory 
remarks from senior management of the Health Resources and Services 
Administration. A plenary session will follow in which the Advisory 
Committee will select a topic for its seventh report and develop a 
plan for completion of the report. In both small groups and in the 
plenary session, the Advisory Committee will determine 
recommendations for the report. An opportunity will be provided for 
public comment.
    On Friday, May 18 the Advisory Committee will continue work on 
the seventh report. The Advisory Committee will plan next steps in 
the report preparation process. An opportunity will be provided for 
public comment.
    For Further Information Contact: Anyone interested in obtaining 
a roster of members or other relevant information should write or 
contact Jerilyn K. Glass, M.D., Ph.D., Division of Medicine and 
Dentistry, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and 
Services Administration, Room 9A-27, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers 
Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone (301) 443-6785. The Web 
address for information on the Advisory Committee is http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/medicine-dentistry/actpcmd.

    Dated: March 27, 2007.
Alexandra Huttinger,
Acting Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. E7-6368 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
COURT OF APPEALS 

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00209-CR 

JAVON PETERSON APPELLANT

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- 

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF DENTON COUNTY 

TRIAL COURT NO. CR-2013-03810-E 

---------- 

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

---------- 

Appellant Javon Peterson appeals her conviction for driving while 

intoxicated (DWI).2 We affirm. 

The State charged appellant with committing DWI. At trial, she pled not 

guilty. After receiving the parties’ evidence and arguments, a jury found her 

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 

2See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2016). 
2 

guilty. Appellant chose the trial court to decide her punishment. The trial court 

assessed thirty days’ confinement but suspended imposition of that sentence and 

placed appellant on community supervision, with several conditions, for twelve 

months. Appellant brought this appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel to 

represent her. 

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and 

a brief under Anders v. California, representing that there are “no non-frivolous 

issues” that could support the appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 

1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there 

are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 

406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of 

Anders). We gave appellant an opportunity to file a pro se response to counsel’s 

brief, and she did so. The State has not filed a brief. 

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on 

the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we 

must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s 

pro se response. We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without 

merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See 
3 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also 

Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we 

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

/s/ Terrie Livingston 

TERRIE LIVINGSTON 

CHIEF JUSTICE 

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ. 

DO NOT PUBLISH 

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 

DELIVERED: August 26, 2016
# C_2007140EN.01000202.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-508/04) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Measures transposing the directive)

(2007/C 140/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and B. Schima, acting as Agents, and by M. Lang, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by E. Riedl and H. Dossi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Incomplete and incorrect transposition of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(e), (g) and (i), Article 6(1) and (2), Articles 12 and 13, Article 16(1) and Article 22(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(e), (g) and (i), Article 6(1) and (2), Articles 12 and 13, Article 16(1) and Article 22(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16395-16396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6244]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>10830]


Florida Disaster <greek-i>FL-00021 Declaration of Economic Injury

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) 
declaration for the State of Florida, dated 3/26/2007.
    Incident: Fire.
    Incident Period: 11/19/2006.
    Effective Date: 3/26/2007.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/26/2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury 
disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary County: Miami-Dade.
Contiguous Counties: Florida: Broward, Collier, Monroe.

    The Interest Rate is: 4.000.
    The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 108300.

[[Page 16396]]

    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is Florida.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002)

Steven C. Preston,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-6244 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2007140EN.01002501.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/25

---

Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Fratex Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — USA Track & Field (TRACK & FIELD USA)

(Case T-103/07)

(2007/C 140/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Fratex Indústria e Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: USA Track & Field, Inc.

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of 18 January 2007 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case No R. 1061/2005-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of 18 January 2007 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case No R. 1061/2005-4);

| — | an order that OHIM should, in consequence, refuse to register Community trade mark No 168088 in respect of goods in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that OHIM should, in consequence, refuse to register Community trade mark No 168088 in respect of goods in Class 25;

| — | an order that OHIM should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that OHIM should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: USA Track & Field, Inc.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Mixed mark USA TRACK & FIELD

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: TRACK & FIELD

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal brought by USA Track & Field, Inc.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant takes the view that the contested decision is contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1), since there exists the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers faced with the possible coexistence on the market of the two signs at issue, on account of the coincidence of the term TRACK & FIELD. As a matter of fact, the goods covered by the marks at issue are identical and, even if there is no likelihood of confusion in the strict sense, there is still the likelihood of risk of confusion in the form of association with the earlier trade mark, which is included in the former [likelihood of confusion] in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) in fine of that regulation.

Pleas in law:

1

in fine

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

1

---
No. 45096.

#### Protests 35365-K, etc., of Chong Lung et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(C. D. 372) crude drugs were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 and drugs, sliced, at 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 34 as claimed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, certify that:

 

1.                                    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2010-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 
| Dated   March 22, 2013 |   |                                               |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                               |
|                        |   | /s/   Brian E. Schaaf                              |
|                        |   | Brian   E. Schaaf                                  |
|                        |   | Vice   President and Assistant Treasurer           |
|                        |   | Ford   Motor Credit Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|                        |   | (senior   officer in charge of servicing function) |

 

----
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C

. 20460 

# JAN 19 2011

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Mr. Bill Wemhoff Senior Principal, Environmental Policy National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 4301 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22203 Dear Mr. Wemhoff: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received the Petition for Reconsideration ofthe final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines that you submitted on October 19,2010. This letter is to inform you that we have already initiated a reconsideration process to address the issues raised in your petition regarding the provision allowing emergency engines to operate for 15 hours per year as part ofan emergency demand response program. A notice announcing our reconsideration ofand requesting public comment on that issue was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2010. At this time, we are not taking action on the other issues raised in your petition. We received a total ofsix petitions for reconsideration ofthe August 20, 2010 final NESHAP for stationary RlCE. We are granting reconsideration on the following issues raised in the petitions:

• continuous parametric monitoring system requirements; • emission standard for existing four-stroke lean burn spark ignition engines; • methodology for considering emissions variability and establishing the floor for the maximum achievable control technology; • use ofco-benefits ofnon-hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions reductions when determining maximum achievable control technologies and generally available control technologies; • use oftotal hydrocarbons rather than formaldehyde as a surrogate for HAP emissions; and • allowance for emergency engines to operate up to 15 hours per year as part ofan emergency demand response program. At this time, we are not taking action ofthe following issues raised in the petitions:

• provisions prohibiting use ofemergency engines for peak shaving operation;

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.go\' Recycled/Recyclable. Printed With Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer

. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper• EPA's decision not to distinguish between engines located in urban and rural areas in establishing emission standards; and • EPA's decision not to have separate standards that would apply during periods of shutdown and malfunction
. EPAplans to initiate a reconsideration process to allow for greater public participation on the issues raised in the six petitions for reconsideration
. A more detailed description ofthe particular issues to be reconsidered and specific information about the process to be followed will be set out in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. Ifyou have any questions regarding the reconsideration process, please contact Melanie King ofmy staffat (919) 541-2469. We thank you for your continuing interest in this rule and look forward to hearing from you during the reconsideration process.

Gina McCarthy Assistant Administrator
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 66 (Friday, April 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6468]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 17091]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Foreign Agricultural Service


Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    On March 22, 2007, the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service 
(FAS), denied a petition for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) that was 
filed on February 16, 2007, by the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative 
Association and the Burley Stabilization Corporation, representing 
burley tobacco producers in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North 
Carolina, West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Upon investigation, the Administrator 
determined the predominant reason for the decline in the burley tobacco 
price was the termination of the Tobacco Buyout Program in 2005, and 
that imports did not contribute importantly to the decline in price. 
Therefore, the burley tobacco petition did not meet the statutory 
requirement that imports contributed importantly to a decline in 
producer price.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 720-2916, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e59197848180cb84818f90969188808b91a5838496cb90968184cb828a93"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f1b1d0e0b0a410e0b051a1c1b020a011b2f090e1c411a1c0b0e41080019">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 23, 2007.
W. Kirk Miller,
Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-6468 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-10-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 49776.

#### Protests 532647-G, etc., of Wo Kee & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was classified and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. *D.*247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of said cited case the ve-tsin, found to contain salt, was excluded from paragraph 5 and protests sustained to this extent.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Atlas Air, Inc., :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal :

Board (O'Donnell (Deceased)), :

Respondent : No. 117 C.D. 2015

O R D E R

NOW, December 16, 2015, having considered petitioner’s application for 

en banc reargument or panel reconsideration and respondent’s response in opposition 

thereto, the application is denied.

_________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI,

President Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-171-3

Patrick G. Melford 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 95) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of Count

1 of the indictment (conspiracy to possess with the intent to

distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21

U.S.C. §846), and he is hereby adjudged guilty on that offense. 

The court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea

agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: May 7, 2012 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00171-JLG-EPD Doc #: 97 Filed: 05/07/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 61969.

#### Ready Foods de Mexico, S. A. *v.*United States,

protests 239880-K, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.