alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

The Flight Shop, Inc. D/B/ AI

### Professional Air and Aero Facilities, LLC Complainants 

### V. City ofBend, Oregon Municipal Airport Respondent Docket No. 16-14-12

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to December14, 2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Kevin Directo , Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis

# (}~.zt,26lb Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 

## j:Jjib' 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension of Time to December 14,2016 for FAA Docket 16-14-12 addressed to: 

### Counsel for Complainant Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. McBreen & Kopko 500 North Broadway Jericho, NY 11753 Email: lkirsch@mklawnyc.com Martin E, Hansen, Esq. Francis, Hansen 

### & Martin LLP 1148 NW Hill Street Bend,Oregon 977701 Email: mehcmfrancis hansen.com 

### Counsel for Respondent Pablo 0. Niiesch Katherine M. Mapes Jessica R. Bell Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airports Compliance Division, AC0-100

audia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis
#### Harold Edward PELHAM, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 21, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### Kenneth COTTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1260.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 25, 1972.

Pollack, Yocom & Fath, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY JJ., and LESTER, M. IGNATIUS, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in a non-jury trial after the appellant was adjudged guilty of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape and was duly sentenced. A single point on appeal is presented which urges the insufficiency of the evidence to establish guilt of the appellant. We have reviewed the record in the light of this point and find that the evidence is not only sufficient but overwhelming. Essentially, appellant urges that his intent to rape the victim cannot be found to exist because he did not complete the act. The judgment is affirmed on the basis of the rule stated in St. Giorge v. State, Fla.1956, 92 So.2d 612. See also Reed v. State, 150 Fla. 269, 7 So.2d 103 (1942); Gorko v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 132.

Affirmed.
#### Webb DODD v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 53094.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1973.

In re: Webb Dodd applying for certi-orari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Allen. 269 So.2d 304.

Writ refused. The issue is factual. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41314

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MIGUEL ANDRADE-ROCHA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-763-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Miguel Andrade-Rocha 

raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. 

Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that knowledge 

of drug type and quantity is not an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense. The 

unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of 

the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 

* 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

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41314 Document: 00513079992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
#### James David WILKINS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47101.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 22, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1973.

Roy Pitts, Daniel P. Self, Jr., Meridian, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by T. C. Childs, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PATTERSON, Justice:

The appellant was convicted of the sale of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and sentenced to three years in the state penitentiary by the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County. Although the appellant was tried and convicted under the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act of 1962, sentence was imposed under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1971, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 6831-74(g) (Supp.1971), which authorizes sentence under the later act. The sentence, therefore, was in accordance with Section 6831-70 (a) (2) of the later act.

The appellant contends that the prior act makes unlawful the “sale” of a controlled substance, but since the later act does not refer specifically to punishment for a “sale,” referring only to “manufacture, delivery, or possession,” there presently exists no punishment for the “sale” of LSD and therefore, the appellant must be discharged. We are of the opinion this issue is controlled by Fisher v. State, 264 So.2d 832 (Miss.1972), and Moore v. State, 264 So.2d 414 (Miss.1972), as well as Kyzar v. State, 271 So.2d 390 (Miss.1972) wherein we held, under similar circumstances, that one convicted for the sale of LSD should be sentenced under Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 6831-70(a) (2) (Supp.1971).* We think it clear that the legislative intent in its use of the word “delivery” was to relieve the state of the task, oftentimes difficult if not impossible, of proving the consideration paid for the contraband, its intentions being to thwart the exchange or transfer of the substance whether accompanied by consideration or not.

We have considered the above assignment of error as well as that appertaining to the *178introduction of the “LSD” pills and find both to be without merit.

Affirmed.

RODGERS, P. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ., concur.

*

 Amended May 1972.
# C_2020103EN.01003201.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/32

---

Action brought on 17 January 2020 — IE v ECDC

(Case T-33/20)

(2020/C 103/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IE (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2018;

| — | annul the decision of 7 October 2019, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 June 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 7 October 2019, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 June 2019;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the breach by the defendant of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 2.3 of ECDC Implementing Rule no 20 on appraisal of temporary agents of the ECDC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the breach by the defendant of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 2.3 of ECDC Implementing Rule no 20 on appraisal of temporary agents of the ECDC.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s breach of the duty of care.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach by the defendant of the applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach by the defendant of the applicant’s right to be heard.

---
# C_2023007EN.01000801.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Zenith Media Communications SRL v Consiliul Concurenţei

(Case C-385/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Penalty imposed by the national competition authority - Determination of the amount of the fine - Consideration of turnover in the profit and loss account - Request for the national competition authority to take into account a different turnover - Refusal by the Competition Council - Real situation of the undertaking concerned - Principle of proportionality)

(2023/C 7/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zenith Media Communications SRL

Defendant: Consiliul Concurenţei

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU and Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice under which, for the purposes of calculating the fine imposed on an undertaking for infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the national competition authority is required, in all circumstances, to take into account the turnover of that undertaking as shown in its profit and loss account, without having the possibility of examining evidence put forward by that undertaking to show that that turnover does not reflect its real economic situation and that, consequently, another amount which reflects that situation should be taken into account as turnover, provided that that evidence is precise and documented.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---
# C_2023104EN.01001101.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/11

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — S v AA

(Case C-566/21, (1) S (Amendment of an unfair term))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or which leaves no room for reasonable doubt - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 6(1) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency (Swiss francs) - Effects of a declaration that a term is unfair - Power of the national court - Prohibition, in principal, on modifying the contract by revising the content of the unfair term)

(2023/C 104/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: S

Respondent: AA

Operative part of the order

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as precluding a national court — which has found that a term contained in a loan agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair and that its removal does not prevent the contract from continuing to exist — from altering the scope of that term, in such a way that the right, granted to the seller or supplier alone, under certain conditions, to convert the currency in which the contract was drawn up into the national currency, is replaced by an obligation to do so at the consumer’s request.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
# Official Journal C 33/29 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 33 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6429 January 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 33

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6429 January 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 33/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2020 to 31 December 2020(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2021/C 33/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2020 to 31 December 2020(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 11 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 33/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2020 to 31 December 2020(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2021/C 33/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2020 to 31 December 2020(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

11

---

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

EN
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 2

To inform the Senate that a quorum of the House had assembled and

had elected Thomas S. Foley, a Representative from the State of Washington, Speaker, and Donnald K. Anderson, a citizen of the State of

California, Clerk.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. GEPHARDT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To inform the Senate that a quorum of the House had

assembled and had elected Thomas S. Foley, a Representative from the State of Washington, Speaker, and

Donnald K. Anderson, a citizen of the State of California, Clerk.

1 Resolved, That the Senate be informed that a quorum

2 of the House of Representatives has assembled; that

3 Thomas S. Foley, a Representative from the State of

4 Washington, has been elected Speaker; and Donnald K.

5 Anderson, a citizen of the State of California, has been

6 elected Clerk of the House of Representatives of the One

7 Hundred Third Congress.
2

•HRES 2 ATH

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the JG Industries, Inc. Form 10-Q for the third quarter of fiscal year 1998 and 
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-25-1997
<CASH>                                            164
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                     702
<ALLOWANCES>                                       36
<INVENTORY>                                     8,918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,106 
<PP&E>                                         15,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,125
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,585
<BONDS>                                         1,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                     1,500
<COMMON>                                       11,246
<OTHER-SE>                                    (7,729)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,932
<SALES>                                        37,373 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               37,373
<CGS>                                          25,105         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,105 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 82
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,144)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       29
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,173)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (2.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0<F1>
<FN>

<F1> In accordance with current financial statement presentation requirements, 
this information is not included in the Company's consolidated financial 
statements.

</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 341

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

in the second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1994

Mr. MONTGOMERY (for himself and Mr. STUMP) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House

for expenses of investigations and studies by the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs in the second session of the

One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and

2 studies by the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (hereinafter

3 in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’), includ4 ing expenses for—

5 (1) procurement of consultant services under

6 section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act

7 of 1946; and
2

HRES 341 IH

1 (2) provision of assistance for members of pro2 fessional staff in obtaining specialized training under

3 section 202(j) of such Act;

4 there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House

5 not more than $827,034.

6 (b) Not more than $18,750 of the amount specified

7 in subsection (a) may be used for consultant services re8 ferred to in paragraph (1) of such subsection and not more

9 than $1,500 of such amount may be used for specialized

10 training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.

11 SEC. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made

12 on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

13 chairman of the Committee, and approved by the Commit14 tee on House Administration.

15 SEC. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolu16 tion for investigations and studies carried out during the

17 period beginning at noon January 3, 1994, and ending

18 immediately before noon on January 3, 1995.

19 SEC. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution

20 shall be expended in accordance with regulations pre21 scribed by the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
|EXHIBIT 31.1                       
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|CERTIFICATION                      
|                                   
|I, Alston D. Correll, certify that:
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   



---

|                     |                                                                                                          | b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |                                                                                                          |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                     |                                                                                                          |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                     |                                                                                                          |                                                                                                                                                                              
|Date: April 29, 2004
|                     |                                                                                                          |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                     | /s/ ALSTON D. CORRELL                            
Alston D. Correll
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### SMITH-ERNST, INC., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Petitioners, v. William C. ODOM and the Industrial Relations Commission of the Department of Commerce, State of Florida, Respondents.

No. 44136.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 17, 1974.

John G. Rooney of Sands, Smalbein, Eu-bank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, Cocoa, for petitioners.

Edward H. Hurt, Orlando, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review on writ of certiora-ri a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission which affirmed an Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims awarding the claimant attorney’s fees for additional benefits being paid by the employer/carrier. Having heard oral argument, we find the Industrial Relations Commission properly affirmed the Judge of Industrial Claims under the particular circumstances of this case on the authority of Ford v. Cunningham-Limp Co., 203 So.2d 326 (Fla.1967), and Boyd v. Southeastern Utilities Service Co., 172 So.2d 817 (Fla.1965). We find no departure from the essential requirements of law.

... According, the writ of certiorari is discharged.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.