alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, March 28, 2012, 4 p.m. to March 29, 2012, 8 p.m., Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 17, 2012, 77 FR 2304.                

This meeting will now be held at 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville MD 20852. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: March 1, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy

[FR Doc. 2012-5683 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Date: June 10, 2015

To: Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738

From: Andrew Bouchard

Subject: Meeting Record for June 10, 2015 Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and The Dow 

Chemical Company

On June 10, 2015, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

participated in a conference call with The Dow Chemical Company. The purpose of the call was 

to discuss Dow’s comments that were submitted to the docket on the initial AMEL MPGF notice

as well as for Dow to discuss its projected startup schedule for their propane dehydrogenation 

unit. See Attachment 1 for the names and affiliations of the meeting participants.
Attachment 1

Participants in June 10, 2015 EPA/Dow Meeting

The Dow Chemical Company Representatives

Jim Fitterling

Earl Shipp

Russell Wozniak

Dennis Deziel

Jarod Davis

U.S. EPA Representatives

Janet McCabe

Penny Lassiter

Mike Koerber

Peter Tsirigotis

Steve Page
# C_2007016EN.01000201.xml

| 24.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4470 — Apollo Group/Jacuzzi Brands)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 16/02)

On 17 January 2007, 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32007M4470. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4470. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: March 31, 2005                          /s/ Edward F. McKernan
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Edward F. McKernan
                                              Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Taylor, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), rendered April 4, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80; *People v Perez,*150 AD2d 395).

The defendant’s remaining contention does not warrant reversal because the alleged error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Kathleen K.H. Hawryluk, Respondent, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated February 27, 1989, which granted an application for area variances, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kit-son, J.), entered August 31, 1991, which granted the petition and annulled the determination.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

We disagree with the court’s conclusion that there was no showing that the zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties *(see, Matter of Faham v Bockman,*151 AD2d 665).

We find no merit to the petitioner’s argument that the Zoning Board improperly failed to follow its prior determination in an unrelated matter, in which, she contends, similar variances were requested and denied. Although a zoning board is bound to follow its own precedents *(see, Knight v Amelkin,*150 AD2d 528), we find that the unrelated matter is sufficiently distinguishable from the present case, in that the lot width and side yard variances sought in the unrelated matter were much more significant than those sought here. Moreover, in the instant case, unlike in the unrelated matter, the Zoning Board concluded, based upon expert testimony, that the proposed subdivision and development would conform with the character of the neighborhood and have no adverse effects on the surrounding property values.

Therefore, since the decision of the Zoning Board to grant the variances was rationally supported by the record, and the determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious, the court erred when it set aside the Zoning Board’s determination *(see,*CPLR 7803; *Matter of Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591; *Matter of Faham v Bockman, supra).*Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING 

Appellate case name: Antonella Apuzzo DiPortanova and Paul Piero DiPortanova V. James 

Patrick Smith ( Court Appointed Guardian), Tina Lamatta, ( Court 

Appointed Guardian of the Person), and Richard E. Monroe, Jr. ( 

Court Appointed Guardian of the Estate

Appellate case number: 01-10-01019-CV

Trial court case number: 94467438

Trial court: Probate Court No 2 of Harris County

Date motion filed: 1/15/13

Party filing motion: Appellants

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack 

 Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

Date: February 27, 2013
#### Cynthia YOUNG, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT In and For the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, and the Honorable Edward E. Carelli, one of the Judges Thereof, Respondents.

No. 87SA203.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

July 13, 1987.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Rick J. Brown, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for petitioner.

Norman S. Early, Jr., Dist. Atty., Nathan B. Coats, Chief Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Cynthia Young was charged with first degree murder and the commission of a crime of violence in connection with a shooting that occurred at her home on August 1, 1986. She moved to dismiss the charges against her on the basis of section 18-1-704.5, 8B C.R.S. (1986), which provides that under certain circumstances an occupant of a dwelling using physical force against an intruder shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. The district court denied the petitioner’s request for a pretrial hearing on the motion to dismiss, ruling that section 18-1-704.5 provides only for an affirmative defense to be raised at trial. The petitioner then sought relief from this court by filing an original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21. We issued an order directing the district court to show cause why it should not hold a hearing on the petitioner’s motion to dismiss.

We have held today in *People v. Guenther,*No. 86SA282 (Colo., July 13, 1987), that section 18-1-704.5(3) authorizes a district court to dismiss a pending criminal charge prior to trial when the defendant establishes the statutory conditions for immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. The rule to show cause is accordingly made absolute, and the district court is directed to provide the petitioner with a timely pretrial hearing to determine whether she is immune from criminal prosecution under section 18-1-704.5.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *663Junior Welch, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Curci, J.), rendered November 4, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
# L_2006039EN.01000901.xml

| 10.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 39/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 39/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 229/2006

of 9 February 2006

determining the extent to which applications for import rights lodged in respect of the quota for live bovine animals of a weight exceeding 160 kg and originating in Switzerland, provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2172/2005, can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2172/2005 of 23 December 2005 laying down detailed rules for the application of an import tariff quota for live bovine animals of a weight exceeding 160 kg and originating in Switzerland provided for in the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (2), and in particular in the first sentence of Article 4(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2172/2005 fixes at 4 600 head the quantity of the annual quota in respect of which Community importers can lodge an application for import rights in accordance with Article 3 of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2172/2005 fixes at 4 600 head the quantity of the annual quota in respect of which Community importers can lodge an application for import rights in accordance with Article 3 of that Regulation.

| (2) | Since the import rights applied for exceed the available quantity referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2172/2005, a unique reduction coefficient should be fixed for quantities tendered, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Since the import rights applied for exceed the available quantity referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2172/2005, a unique reduction coefficient should be fixed for quantities tendered,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Each application for import rights lodged in accordance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2172/2005 for the quota period from 1 January to 31 December 2006 shall be accepted at a rate of 64,5161 % of the import rights applied for.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 February 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 346, 29.12.2005, p. 10.

2

---
# EUR-Lex - 32006M4186 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32006M4186

**Commission Decision of 04/05/2006 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.4186 - GILDE / HEIPLOEG / NAUTICA NOVA) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 04.05.2006

SG-Greffe(2006) D/202375

To the notifying parties

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No. COMP/M.4186 – GILDE/HEIPLOEG/NAUTICA NOVA Notification of 24/03/2006 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 78 of 31/03/2006, page 27

1. On 24.03.2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking Gilde Buy-Out Management Holding B.V. (“Gilde”, the Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Nautica Nova N.V. (“Nautica Nova”, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles) by way of purchase of shares. This transaction complements Gilde’s acquisition of Heiploeg Beheer B.V. cleared in case M. 4089-GILDE/HEIPLOEG.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- Gilde: private equity investor specialized in management buy-out investments

- Heiploeg: sourcing, processing, (wholesale) distributing and selling of shrimps

- Nautica Nova: tropical shrimp fishing and freezing in South America.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph c of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

Signed

Philip LOWE Director General

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
This decision was not selected for publication inthe New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 36,273 4 DAVID ELLIOTT CASTLE, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Cindy Leos, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Gorence & Oliveros, P.C. 12 Robert J. Gorence 13 Victor E. Sanchez 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 GARCIA, Judge. 18 {1} Defendant-Appellant David Elliott Castle appeals from the district court’s 192 denial of his motion to dismiss premised on prosecutorial misconduct and double 1 jeopardy grounds. We previously issued anotice of proposed summary disposition in 2 which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a response with this Court 3 indicating that he does not intend to f ile a memorandum in opposition to our proposed 4 summary disposition. 5 {2} Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated, we affirm the district court’s 6 decision. 7 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________ ______________ 9 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

_______________________________ 12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 13

_______________________________ 14 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 15
# j ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0091
STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. ALOYSIUS DENNIS BLACK CROW,

Defendant and Appellant. ORDER

On February 3, 2023, Appellant Aloysius Dennis Black Crow filed a Notice of Appeal in this matter. In thatNotice,Black Crow assertedthattranscripts hadbeen ordered in accordance with M. R. App. P. 8(3). On March 16, 2023, the District Court record, except for transcripts, was filed in this Court. Under M. R. App. P. 9(1), the record on appeal, including necessary transcripts, shall be transmitted to this Court within 40 days unless certain conditions are met. On May 31, 2023, havingreceived no transcripts nor requests for extension oftime, this Court ordered Black Crow to file a report on the status ofthis appeal on or before June 30, 2023. Black Crow has not filed a status report nor have any other filings been made in this appeal. IT ISTHEREFORE ORDERED that this case isDISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to Appellant Aloysius Dennis Black Crow and to all counsel ofrecord. DATED this IY day ofJuly, 2023. 07/18/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0091
* 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. 99-60404

Summary Calendar

 

DEBRA LAMBERT BOLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY; OSCAR JORDAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:98-CV-180-GR)

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

December 20, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Debra Lambert Boley appeals the district court’s summary

judgment dismissal of her Title VII claims against the

Mississippi Power Company, as well as the district court’s order

dismissing her claim for intentional infliction of emotional

distress and all claims against Oscar Jordan, her supervisor at

the Power Company, in his individual capacity. 

On appeal, Boley argues that 1) the district court

erroneously dismissed her claims against Jordan on the basis that

Title VII does not allow her to maintain an action against him in
No. 98-20276

-2-

his individual capacity, 2) the district court erroneously ruled

that a one-year statute of limitations applied to her claim for

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 3) the district

court erroneously determined that no genuine issues of material

fact exist as to whether Oscar Jordan and/or the Mississippi

Power Company committed acts of sexual discrimination against

her. 

Having carefully considered the briefs on appeal and having

fully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court

properly determined Jordan is not an “employer” for purposes of

Title VII liability. As such, the district court properly

granted his Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Furthermore, we

find no error in the application of the one-year statute of

limitations under Mississippi law to Boley’s claims for

intentional infliction of emotional distress. As such, for

essentially the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM

the dismissal of any individual claims against Oscar Jordan and

we AFFIRM the dismissal of Boley’s claims for intentional

infliction of emotional distress. 

We further conclude, upon a full consideration of all

summary judgment evidence submitted, the district court properly

found Boley failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of gender

discrimination as required under Title VII. Accordingly, the

district court’s summary judgment dismissing Boley’s Title VII

claims against the Mississippi Power Company is AFFIRMED. 

AFFIRMED.