alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2056 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, as the ‘‘Sergeant Brett 

E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, 

as the ‘‘Sergeant Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post 

Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT BRETT E. GORNEWICZ MEMORIAL 

4 POST OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, 

7 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ser8 geant Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2056 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Brett E. 

5 Gornewicz Memorial Post Office’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013296EN.01000102.xml

| 12.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6957 — If P&C/Topdanmark)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 296/02

On 23 September 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6957. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6957. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
TS- CDBA22

Attachment # 9

Add itional Pollution Prevention Information
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2940

To amend title 28, United States Code, to remove from the district courts

jurisdiction over actions to determine questions regarding inmate capacity

at State penal and correctional institutions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. GEREN of Texas (for himself, Mr. WALSH, Mr. DELAY, Mr. GALLEGLY,

Mr. ZELIFF, Mr. SARPALIUS, and Mr. FIELDS of Texas) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to remove from

the district courts jurisdiction over actions to determine

questions regarding inmate capacity at State penal and

correctional institutions.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT

4 COURTS.

5 Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amend6 ed by adding at the end the following:
2

•HR 2940 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1368. Limitation regarding State correctional insti2 tutions

3 ‘‘(a) LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.—Notwithstand4 ing any other provision of this chapter or any other law,

5 the district courts shall not have jurisdiction over any ac6 tion to determine questions regarding the inmate capacity

7 of any State penal or correctional institution.

8 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, the term

9 ‘State’ means the several States, the District of Columbia,

10 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any other territory or

11 possession of the United States, and any subdivision of

12 any such State, district, commonwealth, territory, or pos13 session.’’.

14 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

15 The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85

16 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at

17 the end the following:

‘‘1368. Limitation regarding State correctional institutions.’’.

18 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

19 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any

20 action filed before the date of the enactment of this Act,

21 whether or not judgment has been entered in such action,

22 and to any action filed on or after such date of enactment.

Æ
#### Nimrod C. GRACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1366.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 5, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1968.

Brian T. Hayes, of Parkhurst & Hayes, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Charles W. Musgrove and James T. Car-lisle, Asst. Attys. Gen., Vero Beach, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-appellant, Nimrod C. Grace, along with three other persons was charged by information with the crime of attempted robbery, convicted by a jury, judgment and sentence imposed by the court. It is from this judgment and sentence the defendant, Grace, appeals. We affirm.

The defendant, in the main, suggests as error the court’s refusal to give any instructions on lesser included offenses and the court allowing into evidence the oral implicating statement of a co-defendant.

*226In connection with the first alleged error the record fails to show that the defendant made any objection to^ the trial court to the giving or the failure to give any instruction. It is now too late in an appeal for him to assign as error or as grounds of appeal the giving or the failure to give an instruction to the jury. See Section 918.10(4), F.S.1965, F.S.A.; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 379; Miller v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So.2d 737; Guarino v. State, Fla. 1953, 67 So.2d 650; Febre v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367.

 In connection with the second alleged error the record reveals that all four defendants were jointly tried. They were co-parties. Evidence which is admissible as against one or more co-parties and inadmissible as to other co-parties cannot be excluded. It is the duty of the court to receive it. The implicating statement complained of made by defendant’s co-defendant was admissible in evidence against the co-defendant. However, the trial judge *upon request*should have instructed the jury that the admissions of defendant’s co-defendant could be considered only in determining the guilt of the co-defendant and could not be considered against the defendant.

The defendant made no request to the court to so instruct as to the purpose and effect of the oral implicating statement. His failure to request the court to give such instructions now precludes him from complaining that the statement was improperly admitted into evidence and that the omission of such instructions was prejudicial. See Burris v. United States, 5 Cir. 1951, 192 F.2d 253; State v. Gillies, 1912, 40 Utah 541, 123 P. 93, 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 776; Thomason v. State, 1913, 71 Tex.Cr. 439, 160 S.W. 359; Vance v. State, 1950, 190 Tenn. 521, 230 S.W.2d 987, cert. denied, 339 U.S. 988, 70 S.Ct. 1010, 94 L.Ed. 1389; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1032(4) at 1144; 5 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure § 2090 at 256, 258.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS *and Mc-*CAIN, JJ., concur.
#### Ella Rae Falgout ADAMS v. Errol ADAMS.

No. 62376.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Ella Rae Falgout Adams applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Terrebonne. 357 So.2d 881.

Writ denied.

DIXON, CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
# CA2014041EN.01000601.xml

| 12.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 41/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 41/6

---

RESERVE LIST
   (1)

RESERVE LIST

1

OPEN COMPETITION

OPEN COMPETITION

EPSO/AD/254/13 — HEAD OF UNIT (AD 12)

HEAD OF UNIT

Nuclear Decommissioning Unit (Ispra, Italy)

Joint Research Centre, European Commission

(2014/C 41 A/04)

| DOUBLECOURT | Jean-Jacques |
| --- | --- |
| KIRCHNER | Thomas |
| TROIANI | Francesco |

DOUBLECOURT

Jean-Jacques

KIRCHNER

Thomas

TROIANI

Francesco

The reserve list will be valid until 20 December 2016.

20 December 2016

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---
#02.1

U.S of aw"

Energy MOO Iticy and Renew3bte Energy

TIrriaie Deployment

ziE

Search Help : More Search Options r

About Standards,

I_rro.s C% Itr3rulations

r -PACT 2001 Test

Prttcedlure

Peer Revietq

Infern-,ation Reso rye,

NIOtiL e€ & Rules

c dt0t, betting

R'uh ir. 6Verkslt ps

FIc^^^rs'noys

state P F'tittans

enau^ts:, °c .l E: tiet,rrrar,nL

kesltle nti& Prnl$uct,-

Residential Clothes Dryer and

Room Air Conditioners

Framework Document Public

Meeting

DATE : [October 24, 2007

TIME: 9:00 a. m. - 5:00 p.m. EDT

LOCATION: Holiday Inn Capital

550 C Street SW

Washington, DC]

Purpose : The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the

procedural and analytical approaches the U.S. Department of

Energy anticipates using to evaluate energy conservation

standards for residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners.

Some of the following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat

PDFs. E:-vi^ . i be 0.:^+ 1bi tt iilr

Public Meeting Materials

• Notice of public meeting and availability of the Framework

Document (ADl"76K3

PLEASE NOTE : The correct date for submitting comments to this

document is November 7, 2007, not October 3, 2007, as listed in

the notice.

• Agenda (PDF_26 KB)

• Framework Document (PDF 740. KB)

Contact Information

t_r h:r'•'1s ti rar_.: , P.E.

Project Manager

(202) 586-7436

 EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010 COMMENT 02.1
Bu !ding Technologies Program Home I EERE Home

U.S. Department of Energy

Content Last Updated : 10/15/2007

 EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010 COMMENT 02.1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

*Summary of Duties:*                     A member of the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board serves in all matters of the board as assigned, including policy decisions and technology proposals. The incumbent participates in rendering decisions of the Board. Each decision is set forth in a written opinion which sets forth the basis of the decision. The Member of the Board analyzes and evaluates the legal and factual aspects of each case and conducts necessary research. Research includes examination of the law, regulation and procedures, prior Board decisions and Workers' Compensation cases decided under other jurisdiction or general statutory or common law.                

*Appointment Type:*                     Excepted—Indefinite.                

*Qualifications:*                     The applicant should be well versed in the Federal Workers' Compensation programs to include the processes, adjudication of claims and the appeals process as well as having the ability to interpret regulations and come to a consensus to determine an overall appeals determination with members of board.                

*To Be Considered:*                     Applicants must provide a detailed resume containing a demonstrated ability to perform as a Member of the Board.                

*Closing Date:*                     Resumes must be submitted (postmarked, if sending by mail; submitted electronically; or received, if hand-delivered) by 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 15, 2018. Resumes must be submitted to:                     *sylvia.john@dol.gov*                     or mail to: U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, ATTN: Office of Executive Resources, Room N2495, Washington, DC 20210, phone: 74-365-6851. This is not a toll-free number.                

Dated: August 6, 2018.

Bryan Slater,

Assistant Secretary for Administration & Management.

[FR Doc. 2018-17374 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4510-31-P
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CR.15sp **Contact:**  Melanie Deal Concepción
Public Information Office
(301) 763-3030 (phone)
(301) 763-3762 (fax)
(301) 457-1037 (TDD)PIO@census.gov
 PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA:  JUEVES, 28 DE ENERO DE 2010 Aviso Para La Prensa — La Gira Nacional del Censo del 2010 Llega a West Palm Beach Los 13 vehículos de la Gira Nacional viajarán 1,547 días y más de 150,000 millas a través de todo el país. Las exhibiciones ofrecerán al público una experiencia educativa, atractiva e interactiva sobre el Censo del 2010. En cada evento a través del país, el público tendrá la oportunidad de aprender sobre el Censo del 2010 y conocer sobre los beneficios que un conteo completo puede ofrecer a su comunidad.  Además, el público podrá ver un ejemplo del cuestionario del Censo del 2010 y aprender cómo se utiliza la información recopilada. Tendrán la oportunidad de ver mensajes grabados por otros participantes de la Gira Nacional e incluir  sus propias historias y fotos al proyecto Retrato de los Estados Unidos para explicar por qué "¡yo cuento!".
    
 Para más información acerca del Censo del 2010 y la Gira Nacional puede visitarnos en 2010census.gov y seguirnos en Twitter (@2010Portrait), Facebook, MySpace, Flickr y YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6102

DEVONE SHARNELL BEST,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02187-FL)

Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Devone Sharnell Best, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Devone Sharnell Best, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his 

conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant 

to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction or sentence in a traditional writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to 

test the legality of his detention.

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a 

conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or 

the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent 

to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law 

changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed 

not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping 

provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although 

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Best v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02187-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2019). 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
260 La. 1125

#### AUDUBON INDEMNITY COMPANY v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 52207.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1972.

In re: Audubon Indemnity Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Lafourche. 256 So.2d 655.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
**Exhibit 23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein  Registration Statement Nos.33-122136, 333-122137, 333-03201, 333-75187, 333-75189 and 333-118033 on Form S-8of our reports dated November 26, 2008, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Courier Corporationand subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of and for the three years in the periodended September 27, 2008 (which report expresses an unqualified opinionand includes an explanatory paragraph concerning the Company’s adoption on September 29,20097 of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158 “Employers’Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Pans, anamendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 123(R)”), and theeffectiveness of Courier Corporation’s internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CourierCorporation for the year ended September 27, 2008.

 

 

*/s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP*

 

Boston,MassachusettsNovember 26, 2008

 

----
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. 09-40606

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEOBARDO VILLARREAL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-220-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leobardo Villarreal appeals his guilty-plea conviction for escape from

federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). He argues that the indictment

was flawed: that the lack of a signature violated his constitutional rights, that

it was duplicitous, and that the facts did not support the allegations. He also

takes issue with the rearraignment at which he pleaded guilty, urging that the

district court failed in multiple ways to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 3, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-40606 Document: 00511098011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2010
No. 09-40606

United States v. Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2001). 1

United States v. Daughenbaugh, 549 F.3d 1010, 1012 (5th Cir. 2008) (explaining that

2

a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings); see also United

States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630–31 (2002) (ruling that indictment defects are not

jurisdictional problems).

See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58–59 (2002). 3

United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004). 4

First, as to the alleged problems with the indictment, the grand jury’s

foreperson did sign it. Villarreal’s guilty plea waived his right to challenge the

indictment as duplicitous. By pleading guilty, he also waived his right to

1

challenge any factual defects in the indictment, and, in any event, a review of 2

the record shows the argument to have no merit.

Second, because Villarreal did not before the district court raise his

challenges to the guilty plea hearing, we review for plain error. To secure a 3

reversal for an unpreserved Rule 11 failing, Villarreal must “show a reasonable

probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” After 4

reviewing the record, we are not persuaded that Villarreal has made the

necessary showing, and the facts support the conviction.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-40606 Document: 00511098011 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2010
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Housing Population
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-TPS.70 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, OCT. 9, 2012 2000-2010 Intercensal Population and Housing Unit Estimates This is the second release of the intercensal estimates, originally released in September 2011. The intercensal estimates differ from the postcensal estimates released last decade by the Population Estimates Program in that the intercensal estimates reflect the results of the 2010 Census, providing a consistent time series of population and housing unit estimates from 2000 to 2010. In this second release, intercensal estimates of the resident population of cities and towns and intercensal estimates of housing units are made available for the first time. Intercensal resident population estimates for Puerto Rico are provided by additional demographic detail relative to the first release. This release also updates the original set of state and county intercensal estimates of the resident population by demographic characteristics with files that reflect a methodological improvement (detailed in the revised methodology). Internet address: <https://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/index.html>. **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### Charles A. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43859.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 10, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 275 So.2d 575.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.