alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:13-cr-146

Arthur R. Brown 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 26) that the

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

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: July 23, 2013 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:13-cr-00146-JLG Doc #: 27 Filed: 07/23/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
NO. 07-03-0482-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 19, 2004

______________________________ LARRY JOHNSON, TDCJ NO. 687364, APPEL LANT V. SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, TEXAS ; SHERIFF OF HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS; DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF HOPKINS COUNTY, T EXAS; JUDGE OF THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS; AND TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APP EALS, APPELLEES

_________________________________ FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RA NDALL COUNTY; NO. 52,60 9-C; HONO RABLE PARTICK A . PIRTLE , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

Larry Johnson, proceeding pro se , filed a notice of appeal, received by this court on November 13, 200 3. Appel lant d id not pay the filing fees of $125 or sub mit an affidavit of indigence pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.-2-

On December 1, 2003, this Court received a Motion for Leaveto Proceed in Forma Pauperis and an A

ffidavit of Povert

y from app ellant. The motio n was de nied. B y letter dated January 22, 2004, the clerk of this court notified appellant that th e filing fee had notbeen paid, and that failure to pay it coul d result in dismissal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c ). The filing fee has not been paid. Accordingly, this app eal is d ismissed . T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3. Per Curiam
# L_2006009EN.01S00201.xml

| 13.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 9/s2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 9/s2

---

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 18(1) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including Budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

---
From: Davis, Carlos E. [Carlos.E.Davis@saint-gobain.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:41 PM

To: Reeves, David

Cc: fairchild.susan@epa.gov; Hancy, Cindy Wang

Subject: RE: Cr+6 Emissions from Furnaces

Thank you David and ideally I should have a “furnace” differences response early next week as I am on 

travel the remainder of this week.

Best Regards, 

Carlos E. Davis 

Manager - Environment, Health and Safety 

Western Region 

Saint-Gobain North America

913-544-8888 (Cell) 

913-342-6624, ext 53571 (Office) 

EHS Portal 

From: Reeves, David [mailto:dwreeves@rti.org] 

Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 8:05 AM 

To: Davis, Carlos E. 

Cc: fairchild.susan@epa.gov; Hancy, Cindy Wang 

Subject: Cr+6 Emissions from Furnaces

Per our recent discussion, I wanted to follow up with a note related to the information on the Cr+6 

emission estimates we are developing for our data sets for the CertainTeed facilities.

Based on the recent (November 2010) testing for the K2 furnace that was reported as part of the 

voluntary ICR, we calculated ~513 lbs/yr of Cr+6 emissions. Using that same emission rate and the 

production pull rate for K1, we then calculated ~320 lbs/yr of Cr+6 emissions for the K1 furnace --> 

resulting in ~833 lbs of Cr+6 for the KC facility. We also looked at total chrome emissions and calculated 

that the Cr+6/total Cr ratio is 91.5%.

None of the other furnaces at the Chowchilla or Athens facilities were tested as part of the ICR effort, 

so our usual default would be to use the same emission rate from the K2 test and calculate emissions 

to be input to the data set we are preparing for all fiberglass mfg facilities.

We are seeking additional information on any differences between the K2 furnace and the K1, C1, A1, 

A2 furnaces that would help us determine how to calculate/assign HAP metal emissions using the test 

data we have. As we discussed yesterday, we have some test reports from 2005 and 2007 for the 

Chowchilla and Athens facilities – but they only have total Cr (nothing on Cr+6).
We are also interested in any information on possible furnace controls, the associated costs, and what 

types of HAP metal (Cr+6) reductions might be achieved. You mentioned having installed caustic 

injection on another furnace for PM control and anything you can tell us about costs and Cr reductions 

would be valuable.

We look forward to any information you can provide as we are needing to get a complete data set 

over to EPA next week so the risk modeling can be completed.

Regards -

Dave Reeves 

RTI International 

dwreeves@rti.org 

(919) 316-3739
* 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 27, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30433

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DOYLE STEVEN DODD,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(3:02-CR-110-2-C)

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Doyle Steven Dodd appeals his conviction

and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

cocaine. He argues that (1) the district court erred in finding

that he was neither a minor nor a minimal participant pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and (2) Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), rendered 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 unconstitutional. 

The record discloses that (1) Dodd drove one of three vehicles

in a three-car convoy from Houston, Texas, to Lake Charles,
2

Louisiana, for a diversionary purpose; (2) on arrival in Lake

Charles, Dodd transferred a bag containing five kilograms of

cocaine to his vehicle for the purpose of personally transporting

the drugs to Byron Robbins’s home in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; (3)

Dodd was personally responsible for transporting a significant

amount of cocaine; and (4) Dodd informed law enforcement that he

had previously accompanied Kenneth Dodd to Robbins’s home to

deliver narcotics. We conclude that the district court did not

clearly err when it found that Dodd was neither a minimal nor a

minor participant in the conspiracy, as that finding is plausible

in light of the record as a whole. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a), (b)

(2001); United States v. Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d 276, 296 (5th Cir.

2001). 

Dodd concedes that the issue whether Apprendi rendered

21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 unconstitutional is foreclosed by United

States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), and that he

raises it only to preserve its further review by the Supreme Court.

We are bound by our precedent, absent an intervening Supreme Court

decision or a subsequent en banc decision. See United States v.

Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2017112EN.01000701.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — W, V v X

(Case C-499/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 8 to 15 - Jurisdiction concerning maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 3(d) - Conflicting judgments given in the courts of different Member States - Child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother - The courts of the father’s Member State of residence without jurisdiction to vary a decision that has become final which they adopted earlier concerning the residence of the child, maintenance obligations and contact arrangements))

(2017/C 112/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: W, V

Applicants:

Defendant: X

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, the courts of the Member State which made a decision that has become final concerning parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to a minor child no longer have jurisdiction to decide on an application for variation of the provisions ordered in that decision, inasmuch as the habitual residence of the child is in another Member State. It is the courts of the Member State of habitual residence that have jurisdiction to decide on that application.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

1

---
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00295

- CV

In the Matter of M. A. T., a Juvenile
On Appeal from the 130th District Court of Matagorda County , Texas Trial Cause No. 17

- 0040

- J

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. No costs are assessed due to appellant’s inability to pay costs.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
October 25 , 2018
No. 49352.

#### Protests 1171-K (B), etc., of O. Yoshizawa Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It appeared from the record that certain of the items in question consisted of hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), and were imported and entered subsequent to the effective date of said trade agreement. In accordance therewith the claim at 123-4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and T. D. 48075 was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 of Union Tank Car Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth
P. Fischl, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 Company.

     In witness whereof, I have executed this certification as of the 13th day
of August, 2002.




                                    /s/ Kenneth P. Fischl
                                    --------------------------------
                                        Kenneth P. Fischl
                                        Principal Executive Officer

                                      -19-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2166

STACEY HAILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General & Chief Executive 

Officer, United States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior 

District Judge. (6:11-cv-00022-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey Hailey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stacey Hailey appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his claims of employment discrimination. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we grant Hailey’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Hailey v. Donahoe, No. 6:11-cv-00022-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. 

July 30, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016475EN.01000701.xml

| 19.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 475/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Evelyn Danqua v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-429/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - National procedural rule laying down, for the submission of an application for subsidiary protection, a period of 15 working days from notification of the rejection of the application for asylum - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Proper conduct of the procedure for examining the application for subsidiary protection - Proper conduct of the return procedure - Not compatible))

(2016/C 475/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Evelyn Danqua

Appellant:

Respondents: Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

Respondents:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a national procedural rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires an application for subsidiary protection status to be made within a period of 15 working days of notification, by the competent authority, that an applicant whose asylum application has been rejected may make an application for subsidiary protection.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7961]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection


Notice of Cancellation of Customs Broker License

AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security.

ACTION: General Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 
(19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the 
following Customs broker licenses are cancelled without prejudice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  License
             Name                <greek-i>           Issuing port
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin, Kassatly & Company....        13056  San Francisco.
Cornerstone Logistics, Inc....        17392  San Francisco.
Braverman Enterprise, Inc.....        21051  Los Angeles.
BLG, Inc......................         7360  New York.
Carol L. Page.................         7627  Seattle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: April 16, 2007.
Daniel Baldwin,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
 [FR Doc. E7-7961 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
# C_2015320EN.01002604.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Cav. Gicacomo Bolasco di Gianni Bolasco Sas v Comune di Monastir, Equitalia Centro SpA

(Case C-37/15) (1)

1

(2015/C 320/41)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of United-Guardian, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ken Globus, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 Company.

|Date: November 11, 2008 | By:/s/ Ken GlobusKen GlobusPresident and Principal Executive Officer
|----------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to United-Guardian, Inc. and will be retained by United-Guardian, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---
A98A1953.

#### JOINER et al. v. GOLD KIST, INC.

(514 SE2d 39)

Pope, Presiding Judge.

Gold East, Inc., is an agricultural cooperative that ran an egg processing facility in Florida from 1968 until 1989. Arthur Joiner, Jack Wilson and Nelle Wilson were egg producers and members of the cooperative. In 1989, Gold Kist sold the facility to Hillandale Farms. Several cooperative members then sued Gold Kist, but Joiner and the Wilsons did not join in the lawsuit. *Gold Kist v. Wilson,*227 Ga. App. 848 (490 SE2d 466) (1997) (non-precedential). In 1995, Joiner, Jack Wilson and the estate of Nelle Wilson filed the instant five-count lawsuit. They appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Gold Kist on four of the counts.

1. In two counts, Joiner and the Wilsons allege fraud by Gold Kist for having promised it would do business with them as long as they performed satisfactorily and for failing to protect their interests when it sold the plant. Joiner and the Wilsons knew of the sale in 1989 and thus should have brought fraud claims based on the sale within four years. The claims, filed six years after the sale, are now barred by the four year statute of limitation. OCGA § 9-3-31.

2. In another count, Joiner claims when he resigned from the cooperative Gold East should have paid him $175,000 as his “notified equity.” Instead, pursuant to the cooperative’s by-laws, Joiner was paid $45,000 as the present discounted value of that equity. The trial court correctly granted summary judgment on this claim because when Joiner left the cooperative he signed a release agreeing with the discounted value payment and releasing Gold Kist from any future claims. Moreover, in *Gold Kist v. Wilson,*227 Ga. App. at 848-852 (1), this Court concluded that Gold Kist is entitled under its bylaws to pay resigning cooperative members the discounted present value, rather than the full face value, of their notified equity.

3. In the last count, Joiner and the Wilsons claim Gold Kist should have paid them all egg sale profits each year instead of withholding part of the profits as notified equity. The trial court properly granted summary judgment on this claim because Joiner and the Wilsons, like the plaintiffs in *Gold Kist v. Wilson,*gave testimony showing they understood that Gold East would not pay them 100 percent of the profits but would withhold a portion of the profits as notified equity in order to run the cooperative.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to Gold Kist and the judgment must be upheld.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beasley, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.*

*622Decided February 23, 1999.

*Gibson & Spivey, Douglas L. Gibson,*for appellants.

*Alston & Bird, Kenneth D. Steele, Jay D. Bennett, Richard R. Hays, David T. Markle,*for appellee.