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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3346

To give effect to the norms of international law forbidding the abduction

of persons from foreign places in order to try them for criminal offenses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 22, 1993

Mr. GONZALEZ submitted the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To give effect to the norms of international law forbidding

the abduction of persons from foreign places in order

to try them for criminal offenses.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘International Kidnap5 ping and Extradition Treaty Enforcement Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PROSECUTION OF UNLAWFULLY

7 ABDUCTED PERSONS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—A person who is forcibly abducted

9 from a foreign place which has in effect an extradition

10 treaty with the United States—
2

HR 3346 IH

1 (1) by the agents of a governmental authority

2 in the United States for the purposes of a criminal

3 prosecution; and

4 (2) in violation of the norms of international

5 law; shall not be subject to prosecution by any gov6 ernmental authority in the United States.

7 (b) FOREIGN GOVERNMENTAL CONSENT.—An ab8 duction is not, for the purposes of this section, a violation

9 of the norms of international law if the government of the

10 foreign place consents to that abduction, but such consent

11 may not be implied by the absence of a prohibition on such

12 abductions in a treaty regarding extradition.

Æ
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PAPIERFABRIK AUGUST KOEHLER SE 

AND KOEHLER AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, 

MITSUBISHI HITEC PAPER FLENSBURG GMBH 

AND MITSUBISHI HITEC PAPER BIELEFELD 

GMBH, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

and 

APPLETON PAPERS, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2012-1161 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 08-CV-0430, Judge Donald C. Pogue. 
______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

RICHARD P. FERRIN, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With 

him on the brief was WILLIAM SILVERMAN. 

MARC A. BERNSTEIN, Attorney, Office of the General 

Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, 

of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee, 

International Trade Commission. With him on the brief 

were JAMES M. LYONS, General Counsel, and NEAL J.

REYNOLDS, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation. 

JOSEPH W. DORN, King & Spalding LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Appleton 

Papers Inc. With him on the brief were GILBERT B.

KAPLAN and BRIAN E. MCGILL. Of counsel was ASHLEY C.

PARRISH. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and 

MAYER, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 January 2, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
* 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 21, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41695

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFRED ALDRIDGE SMALLEY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-793-1

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfred Aldridge Smalley, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of

transporting an undocumented alien for financial gain. Smalley

argues on appeal that his conviction and guilty plea should be

vacated because a magistrate judge, rather than an Article III

judge, presided over his FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 colloquy; that the

district court impermissibly delegated its authority to require

payment for drug testing to the probation office; and that the

terms of supervised release contained in the written judgment
No. 02-41695

-2-

entered by the district court conflict with the court’s oral

pronouncement at sentencing. 

Smalley correctly acknowledges that his first two arguments

are foreclosed by this court’s precedent and states that he

raises them merely to preserve the issues for Supreme Court

review. See United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261, 264-66 (5th

Cir. 1997); United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363, 364-66 (5th

Cir. 2002). We find no abuse of discretion in the written terms

of supervised release imposed by the district court. Warden, 291

F.3d at 364-65; United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 851 (5th

Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                 Exhibit 21(a)

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AS OF MAY 28, 2000



                                                          Jurisdiction In
                                                          Which Organized
                                                          ---------------

Alta Dena Certified Dairy, Inc.                           Delaware
Amboy Specialty Foods Company                             Delaware
Barber Dairies, Inc.                                      Delaware
Bell Dairy Products, Inc.                                 Texas
Berkeley Farms, Inc.                                      California
Bowman Dairy Company, Inc.                                Delaware
Coburg, Inc.                                              South Carolina
Cream o'Weber Dairy, Inc.                                 Utah
Creamland Dairies, Inc.                                   New Mexico
Dean Dairy Products Company                               Pennsylvania
Dean Dip and Dressing Company                             Delaware
Dean Foods Company of California                          Delaware
Dean Foods Company of Indiana                             Delaware
Dean Foods Products Company                               Delaware
Dean Milk Company, Inc.                                   Kentucky
Dean Pickle and Specialty Products Company                Wisconsin
DFC Transportation Company                                Delaware
E.B.I. Foods, Ltd.                                        United Kingdom
Elgin Blenders, Inc.                                      Illinois
Gandy's Dairies, Inc.                                     Texas
H. Meyer Dairy Company                                    Delaware
Ice Cream Products, LLC                                   Illinois
Liberty Dairy Company                                     Michigan
McArthur Dairy, Inc.                                      Florida
Mayfield Dairy Farms, Inc.                                Tennessee
Meadow Brook Dairy Company                                Pennsylvania
Meadows Distributing Company                              Illinois
Purity Dairies, Inc.                                      Tennessee
Reiter Dairy, Inc.                                        Ohio
Ryan Foods Company                                        Kentucky
Schwartz Pickle Company                                   Delaware
T.G. Lee Foods, Inc.                                      Florida
Verifine Dairy Products Corporation of Sheyboygan         Wisconsin
W.B. Roddenbery Co., Inc.                                 Georgia
Wengert's Dairy, Inc.                                     Delaware

The names of all other subsidiaries have been omitted from the above list
because, when considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would not
constitute a material subsidiary.




                                       24
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government





---

close


back button
 Senegal source
 Print Share
 Basic Facts Population
 People per sq. km
 Males per 100 females
 Children per woman
 Goods exported from U.S.
 Goods imported to U.S.
 Change in exports from U.S. for 2014 to 2023
 A Closer Look Source
 Comparisons
 Compared to the U.S.
 Compared to the World
 K = Thousands
                M = Millions
                B = Billions
  Merchandise Trade U.S. Trade in Manufactured Goods
 Top Exported Goods by U.S. State or Territory
 Population Current and Projected Population
 Population by Age and Sex
 Source and Notes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Database (demographic data) and USA Trade Online (trade data); Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book (country reference maps). This application presents data for 228 countries and areas of the world with a 2024 population of 5,000 or more. For eleven of those countries and areas, only demographic data are presented. "Data not available" indicates that data are not available from this application.  In such instances, data may be available elsewhere at the census.gov website. Trade figures presented for France do not include data for overseas departments French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Reunion but do include data for dependencies Saint Barthelemy and Saint Martin.  Trade figures for the United Kingdom include data for crown dependencies Guernsey, Isle of Man, and Jersey. To learn more about world population projections, go to Notes on the World Population Clock. To learn more about international trade data, go to Guide to Foreign Trade Statistics. All trade figures are in U.S. dollars on a nominal basis.


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
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                 BIRDS EYE FOODS MASTER SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN

      This amendment is adopted by Birds Eye Foods, Inc., a corporation duly
formed and existing under and by virtue of the general Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware (referred to herein as the "Employer").

                                  WITNESSETH

      WHEREAS, the Employer has adopted the Birds Eye Foods Master Salaried
Retirement Plan (the "Plan") which was amended and restated effective January 1,
2001 pending receipt of a favorable determination letter from the Internal
Revenue Service, and

      WHEREAS, the Employer has reserved the right pursuant to the provisions of
the Plan to amend it at any time, and

      WHEREAS, the Employer now wishes to amend the Plan,

      NOW, THEREFORE, said Plan is hereby amended by adding Section 5.5(g)(5)
as follows:

      (5) Each Participant who continues working after his Normal Retirement
Date shall be notified within a reasonable time after his Normal Retirement
Date, by first class mail or personal delivery, that his pension benefits
otherwise payable under the Plan have been suspended; provided, however that
pension benefits required to be paid pursuant to paragraph (2) above shall not
be suspended. Such notification shall describe the reasons for this notice and
include a description of this Plan provision and department of Labor regulation
2530.203-3.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed this 6th day of May
2003.

                                                  BIRDS EYE FOODS, INC.

                                                  BY:  /s/ Lois Warlick-Jarvie
                                                       ------------------------

ATTESTED:  /s/ Karen A. Babey
           --------------------------------
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Veritas DGC Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-K"), I, David B. Robson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  1. The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

October 7, 2002

                                             /s/ David B. Robson
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             David B. Robson
                                             Chief Executive Officer
#### Richard John FRAKES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1156.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 22, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Mark King Leban, and Steven Lipton, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Peter F. LaPorte, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES A. CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The single question presented on this appeal is whether or not the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying appellant’s motion to suppress certain evidence. We have previously been called upon to pass upon the legality of this same search. See Culnane v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 277 So. 2d 80S, filed May 8, 1973. Our review of the record in the light of the arguments on this appeal confirms our prior opinion.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. CITY OF APOPKA, a political subdivision of Orange County, Florida, Relator, v. Honorable Murray W. OVERSTREET, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-64.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 29, 1971.

Prohibition denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Veritas DGC Inc. (the “Company”) forthe year ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”), I, Mark E. Baldwin, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 ofChapter 6 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

 

1.               The Form 10-Kfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

October 10, 2005

 

 
| /s/ MARK E. BALDWIN     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Mark E. Baldwin         |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

**A signed original of this written statement requiredby Rule 13a-14(b) has been provided toVeritas DGC Inc. and will be retained by Veritas DGC Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23C

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-63875 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-09679 on Form S-8,
Registration Statement No. 333-10517 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No.
333-17517 on Form S-3 of our report dated October 10, 1996 on the consolidated
balance sheet of Veritas DGC Inc. and subsidiaries as of July 31, 1996 and the
related consolidated statements of income, cash flows and changes in
stockholders' equity for each of the two years in the period ended July 31,
1996 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31,
1997.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas
October 15, 1997
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 KATE BRAVERMAN, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3 v. No. 31,574 4 LPL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 5 Defendant-Appellee, 6 and 7 RICHARD LEES; JONATHAN THORNTON; 8 and ALAN GOLDSTEIN, 9 Defendants. 10

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 11 Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge 12 Gary W. Boyle 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 Lewis and Roca LLP 16 Ross L. Crown 17 Albuquerque, NM 182 for Appellee LPL Financial 13 Bannerman & Williams 1 Margaret A. Graham 2 John A. Bannerman 3 Albuquerque, NM 4 for Defendant Richard Lees 5 Richard S. Lees, PA 6 Richard S. Lees 7 Santa Fe, NM 8 for Defendant Alan Goldstein 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION 10 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 11 Appellant Kate Braverman (Plaintiff) app eals from the district court’s order that 12 dismisses her claim of malicious abuse of process against Appellee LPL Financial 13 Corporation (Defendant). 14 In her docketing statement, Plaintiff argu ed that the district court erred (1) in 15 granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss her malicious abuse of process claim [DS 4; 16 RP Vol.II/385, 396; Vol.III/426, 465] and (2) in denying her oral motion to amend her 17 complaint. [DS 3, 4] We issued a notice, proposing to affirm both issues. Plaintiff 18 has not filed a memorandum in opposition. Therefore, for the reasons extensively 19 detailed in our notice, weaffirm both issues. See Frick v. Veazey , 116 N.M. 246, 247, 20 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993) (providing that failure to re spond to a calendar 21 notice constitutes acceptance of the proposed disposition). 224 Defendant filed a memorandum in support, and we briefly address Defendant’s 1 memorandum. As Defendant has acknowledge d, our notice disposes of the issues 2 raised by Plaintiff in her docketing statement. [MIS 2] Although not argued in 3 Plaintiff’s docketing statement [DS 3], Defe ndant nonetheless requests that this Court 4 address also the merits of Plaintiff’s malic ious abuse of process claim in relation to 5 its interpleader action. [MIS 2] We find it unnecessary to do so since Plaintiff did not 6 raise arguments in her docketing statement inrelation to the interpleader action, and 7 our affirmance of the issues raised is dispositive. See generally Rule 12-208(D)(4) 8 NMRA (providing that the docketing statement sets forth the issues on appeal). 9 To conclude, we affirm. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14

15 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 16

17 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 185
# C_2013329EN.01000101.xml

| 13.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 November 2013

2013/C 329/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3432 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4580 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84470 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9103 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2328 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2995 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,010 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 298,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7028 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2035 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4555 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7516 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4401 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4097 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4140 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6333 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6785 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 441,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,9500 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1825 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6241 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 468,68 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3148 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,866 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,1150 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,418 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1339 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7464 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,5560 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3432

JPY

Japanese yen

133,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4580

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84470

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9103

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2328

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2995

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,010

HUF

Hungarian forint

298,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7028

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2035

RON

Romanian leu

4,4555

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7516

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4401

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4097

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4140

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6333

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6785

KRW

South Korean won

1 441,28

ZAR

South African rand

13,9500

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1825

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6241

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 468,68

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3148

PHP

Philippine peso

58,866

RUB

Russian rouble

44,1150

THB

Thai baht

42,418

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1339

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7464

INR

Indian rupee

85,5560

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Edward PRAGER, Appellant, v. Douglas E. OESTERLE et al., Appellees.

No. 73-579.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John HALL, Appellee.

No. 71-3.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 2, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2014358EN.01000302.xml

| 10.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 358/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 358/3

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2014/C 358/04

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 11.9.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 11.9.2014-31.12.2014 |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Stock or group of stocks | SOL/7FG. |
| Species | Common sole (Solea solea) |
| Zone | VIIf and VIIg |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 41/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

11.9.2014

Duration

11.9.2014-31.12.2014

Member State

United Kingdom

Stock or group of stocks

SOL/7FG.

Species

Common sole (Solea solea)

Solea solea

Zone

VIIf and VIIg

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

41/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---