alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 739.

#### Mrs. Ida Hughes *v.*The State of Georgia.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia.

January 4, 1926.

*Messrs. Charles Clark*and *B. B. Jackson*for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

*Per Curiam.*

.Application for further proceedings in forma pauperis herein denied, for the reason that the court has examiried the typewritten record and found that the writ of error presents no substantial federal question.
1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-1914

___________ Sherwin Brown, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the SunAmerica, Inc.; SunAmerica * District of Minnesota. Securities, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 28, 2005 Filed: May 3, 2005

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Sherwin Brown appeals the district court’s 1 orders (in two civil actions he brought) denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award, confirming the award, and granting summary judgment to defendants. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in confirming the arbitration award or in granting summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14290]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory 
Committees

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Renewal of federal advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to 
announce that it is renewing the charter for the Uniform Formulary 
Beneficiary Advisory Panel (``the Panel'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee 
Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel's charter is being renewed 
pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1074g(c)(1) and in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) 
and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The Panel's charter and contact information for 
the Panel's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be found at http://www.facadatabase.gov/.
    The Panel provides the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary for Personnel and 
Readiness, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, 
independent advice and recommendations on the development of the 
uniform formulary. The Secretary of Defense shall consider the comments 
of the Panel before implementing the uniform formulary or implementing 
changes to the uniform formulary.
    The Panel shall be composed of no more than 15 members and shall 
include members that represent: a. Non-governmental organizations and 
associations that represent the views and interests of a large number 
of eligible covered beneficiaries; b. Contractors responsible for the 
TRICARE retail pharmacy program; c. Contractors responsible for the 
national mail-order pharmacy program; and d. TRICARE network providers. 
All members of the Panel are appointed to provide advice on behalf of 
the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing 
any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict 
of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Panel-related travel 
and per diem, Panel members serve without compensation.
    The public or interested organizations may submit written 
statements to the Panel membership about the Panel's mission and 
functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in 
response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Panel. All 
written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Panel, and 
this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to 
the membership for their consideration.

    Dated: June 28, 2018.
Shelly Finke,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018-14290 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### Joseph BIZJAK v. MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO.

No. 38720.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 497.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. L. B. CARRIERE and Larry Zerangue.

No. 62659.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana through the District Attorney, Morgan J. Goudeau, III, applying for writ of certiorari. St. Landry Parish.

Writ denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 937

To provide for the establishment of the Margaret Walker Alexander National

African-American Research Center.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 17, 1993

Mr. PARKER (for himself, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. WHITTEN, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. GORDON, Mr. STOKES, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. SISISKY, Mr.

FORD of Tennessee, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FROST,

Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MFUME, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. BROWDER,

Mr. OWENS, Mr. WYNN, Mr. DIXON, Miss COLLINS of Michigan, and Ms.

NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To provide for the establishment of the Margaret Walker

Alexander National African-American Research Center.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MARGARET WALKER

4 ALEXANDER NATIONAL AFRICAN-AMERICAN

5 RESEARCH CENTER.

6 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—In recognition of, and to com7 memorate, the literary contributions of Margaret Walker

8 Alexander, the Secretary of Education shall make a grant
2

•HR 937 IH

1 to Jackson State University to establish the Margaret

2 Walker Alexander National African-American Research

3 Center (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Center’’).

4 The Center shall be located at Jackson State University

5 in Jackson, Mississippi.

6 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANT.—A grant may not

7 be made under subsection (a) unless an application is

8 made to the Secretary of Education at such time and in

9 such manner as the Secretary may require. The applica10 tion shall contain provisions designed to ensure that—

11 (1) the Center will be located in the building

12 known as ‘‘Ayer Hall’’ on the campus of Jackson

13 State University;

14 (2) the building will serve as a national center

15 for the study, research, and teaching of African16 American literature and history and as a repository

17 for papers and memorabilia relating to the life of

18 Margaret Walker Alexander and other individuals

19 noted for their work in African-American literature

20 and history; and

21 (3) such other conditions as the Secretary

22 requires.

23 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

24 (a) AMOUNT.—There are authorized to be appro25 priated not to exceed $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1993.
3

•HR 937 IH

1 (b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Funds appropriated

2 pursuant to this Act are authorized to remain available

3 until expended.

Æ
#### Ronnie Thurman BRASHIER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 46957.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 13, 1972.

W. S. Moore, Charles O. Jones, Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by J. B. Gar-retty, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

SMITH, Justice:

Ronnie Thurman Brashier was convicted in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Harrison County of selling one capsule containing LSD to an undercover police agent. For that offense he was sentenced to serve a term of three years in the penitentiary, two years of which were suspended. He has appealed here.

A careful consideration of the entire record has convinced us that this is one of those very rare cases in which the evidence offered to support the conviction, in several of its material aspects, was so unsatisfactory that fundamental justice requires re*337versal of the judgment of conviction and the remanding of the case for a new trial before another jury.

Reversed and remanded.

GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ., concur.
# C_2023045EN.01000201.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/2

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società Eredi Raimondo Bufarini S.r.l. — Servizi Ambientali v Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero della Transizione Ecologica, Comitato tecnico regionale delle Marche, Coordinamento per l’uniforme applicazione sul territorio nazionale di cui all’art. 11 del D.Lgs. 105/2015

(Case C-144/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - Scope of the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling - Exceptions to that obligation - Criteria - Situations in which the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt - Condition related to the national court or tribunal of last instance being convinced that the matter would be equally obvious to the other courts or tribunals of last instance of the Member States and to the Court of Justice)

(2023/C 45/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Società Eredi Raimondo Bufarini S.r.l. — Servizi Ambientali

Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero della Transizione Ecologica, Comitato tecnico regionale delle Marche, Coordinamento per l’uniforme applicazione sul territorio nazionale di cui all’art. 11 del D.Lgs. 105/2015

Operative part of the order

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may refrain from referring to the Court a question concerning the interpretation of EU law and take upon itself the responsibility for resolving it where the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The question whether such a possibility exists must be assessed on the basis of the characteristic features of EU law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the European Union.

That national court or tribunal is not required to establish in detail that the other courts or tribunals of last instance of the Member States and the Court would give the same interpretation, but must have obtained the conviction, according to an assessment which takes account of those factors, that the matter would be equally obvious to those other national courts or tribunals and to the Court.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 28.2.2022.

---
# C_2020381EN.01002701.xml

| 12.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/27

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 381/09)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 31 July 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85513 |
| Decision No | 100/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Amendment to the subsidised loan scheme to package travel traders (aid to micro or small enterprises in difficulty on 31 December 2019) |
| Legal basis | Parliamentary Decision and a letter of assignment and term sheet issued by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Innovation Norway |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Interest subsidy |
| Budget | NOK 1 500 million |
| Duration | 26 May 2020 - 31 December 2020 |
| Economic sectors | Package travel |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Innovation Norway
  Akersgata 13
  0104 Oslo
  NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

31 July 2020

Case No

85513

Decision No

100/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Amendment to the subsidised loan scheme to package travel traders (aid to micro or small enterprises in difficulty on 31 December 2019)

Legal basis

Parliamentary Decision and a letter of assignment and term sheet issued by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Innovation Norway

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Interest subsidy

Budget

NOK 1 500 million

Duration

26 May 2020 - 31 December 2020

Economic sectors

Package travel

Name and address of the granting authority

Innovation Norway

Akersgata 13

0104 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
#### Dewey THIBEAUX v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 54266.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1974.

In re: Dewey Thibeaux applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 285 So.2d 363.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct,
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50067

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR GARCIA-URBINA,

also known as Oscar Gaica-Urbina

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-00-CR-421-ALL

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

October 29, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Garcia-Urbina appeals the 41-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

illegally reentering the United States after removal in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid

because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

Garcia-Urbina complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior
No. 01-50067 

-2-

removal following an aggravated felony conviction. He argues

that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause. 

Alternatively, Garcia-Urbina contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that

the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 

Garcia-Urbina acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issues for

Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). GarciaUrbina’s arguments are foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                  ------------

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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I,
Howard S. Modlin, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer,
and I, William G. Henry, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief
Financial Officer, each of General DataComm Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), do
each hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

         (1)      The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended December 31, 2004 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

         This Certification accompanies this Form 10-QSB as an exhibit, but
shall not be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the
Company or the certifying officer.


                                      /s/ HOWARD S. MODLIN
                                      ------------------------------------------
Date: February 14, 2005               Howard S. Modlin,
                                      Chairman of the Board, President and
                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                      /s/ WILLIAM G. HENRY
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      William G. Henry
                                      Vice President, Finance and Administration
                                      and Chief Financial Officer

                                       44
#### Clifford BOSWELL v. ROY O. MARTIN LUMBER CO., INC.

No. 61921.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 28, 1978.

In re: Clifford Boswell, applying for Cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Vernon. 355 So.2d 33.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Nathan L. Berk and Henrietta Berk, Appellants, *v.*Zoning Hearing Board, Township of Whitehall, Appellee.

Argued October 11, 1974,

before Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of three.

*49
      *William H. Eckensberger, Jr.,*for appellants.

*F. Paul Laubner,*with him *Harry A. Kitey,*for appellee.

*Martin J. Karess*and *Charles J. Fonzone,*with them *Walker, Thomas, Karess, Upson & Zieger,*for intervening protestants.

December 9, 1974:

Opinion by

Judge Cbumush, Jk.,

This appeal is from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, dated February 26, 1974, affirming the Township of Whitehall Zoning Hearing Board’s refusal to grant a special exception for the purpose of constructing and operating a 30,000 square foot supermarket in a C-l Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. A grocery store or meat market with a total floor space of less than 5,000 square feet and "other similar retail business or service establishments which supply commodities or perform services primarily for residents of surrounding neighborhoods” are permitted by special exception in a C-l zone. The zoning hearing board determined that the proposed supermarket did not constitute a "similar retail business,” and accordingly refused to grant a special exception. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law, we find neither an abuse of discretion nor an error of *50law in the Zoning Hearing Board’s determination, and so we affirm. In so doing, we adopt the able opinion of Judge John E. Backbnstoe of the court below which is reported at 35 Lehigh L. J. 461 (1974).

Order affirmed.
#### Leslie D. HORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 1, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 23, 1973.

*388James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Sarasota, and Thomas A. Capelle, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Horton appeals from denial without evidentiary hearing of his petition for post-conviction relief. He relies on an affidavit of Kenneth Stringer, in which Stringer states that he was the one who had sexual relations with the victim for whose rape Horton was said to have been convicted. Stringer’s affidavit also refers to his “partner” who was present, but does not identify that partner. Thus the most that can be said for the affidavit is that it asserts Stringer’s guilt, not Horton’s innocence, although Stringer would assert that he was innocent of rape because the act, though there had been prior threats, was accomplished “without displaying the pistol or using any force whatsoever to harm her.” If the partner was Horton, he would still be guilty as a principal for having aided and abetted the crime. State v. Roby, Fla. 1971, 246 So.2d 566.

Oral argument is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 3.10(e), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and the order denying the petition is

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Sierra Mining Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Denis Atkins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 29, 2008

/s/ Dennis AtkinsDennis AtkinsChief Financial Officer

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Amended Annual Report of Apollo Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Llee Chapman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

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


Dated:  July 25, 2004


                                 /s/ R. LLEE CHAPMAN
                                 -----------------------
                                 R. LLEE CHAPMAN
                                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER