alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Phillip Paul LAROCCO, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 18267.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 25, 1982.

*3Walter F. Bugden, Jr., Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was charged with the crime of theft, in violation of U.C.A., 76-6-404, and retained counsel to represent him. Following a jury verdict of guilty, defense counsel filed this appeal. Defendant has since filed an affidavit of impecuniosity, claiming that his “financial reserves are completely exhausted at this point.” Both defendant and his counsel assert that defendant qualifies for court-appointed representation. Counsel requests permission to withdraw, which request is hereby granted.

This Court is not equipped, however, to take evidence as to the veracity of defendant’s claim of impecuniosity. The case is therefore remanded to the district court for the purpose of hearing any evidence it deems appropriate to make a determination as to defendant’s ability to retain substitute counsel. In the event defendant is found to be impecunious, as alleged, the district court is directed to appoint counsel for the purpose of appeal.

*So ordered.*
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 185

Recognizing and commending the personnel of Eglin Air Force Base, Florida,

for their participation and efforts in support of the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Operation Allied Force in the Balkan

region.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1999

Mr. GRAHAM submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

RESOLUTION

Recognizing and commending the personnel of Eglin Air

Force Base, Florida, for their participation and efforts

in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s

(NATO) Operation Allied Force in the Balkan region.

Whereas the personnel of the Air Armament Center at Eglin

Air Force Base, Florida, developed and provided many of

the munitions, technical orders, expertise, and support

equipment utilized by NATO during the Operation Allied

Force air campaign;

Whereas the 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition

(JDAM) developed at the Air Armament Center was the

very first weapon dropped in Operation Allied Force;
2

•SRES 185 IS

Whereas the Air to Ground 130 (AGM 130) standoff missile,

developed at the Air Armament Center, enabled the F15E Strike Eagle aircrews to standoff approximately 40

nautical miles from targets and attack with very high

precision; and

Whereas the reliable performance of the JDAM and AGM

130 enabled the combat air crews to complete bombing

missions accurately, effectively, and with reduced risk to

crews, resulting in no casualties among NATO air personnel, thereby making these munitions the ordinance favored most by combat air crews: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) commends the men and women of Eglin Air

3 Force Base, Florida, for their contributions to the

4 unqualified success of Operation Allied Force;

5 (2) recognizes that the efforts of the men and

6 women of the Air Armament Center, Eglin Air

7 Force Base, Florida, helped NATO conduct the air

8 war with devastating effect on our adversaries, en9 tirely without American casualties in the air combat

10 operations;

11 (3) expresses deep gratitude for the sacrifices

12 made by those men and women and their families in

13 their support of American efforts in Operation Allied

14 Force; and

15 (4) commits to maintaining the technological

16 superiority of American air armament as a critical
3

•SRES 185 IS

1 component of our Nation’s capability to conduct and

2 prevail in warfare while minimizing casualties.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 80 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.80
                                     Agreed to February 10, 2000        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on 
Thursday, February 10, 2000, or Friday, February 11, 2000, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, 
February 22, 2000, or until such time on that day as may be specified 
by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on the 
legislative day of Wednesday, February 16, 2000, Thursday, February 17, 
2000, or Friday, February 18, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 29, 2000, for 
morning-hour debate, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the 
Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 51188 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. REYNALDO MEDINA

- SANCHEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 1803

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Reynaldo Medina

- Sanchez (Medina) pleaded guilty of illegal reentry and was sentenced within the guidelines range to a 24

- month term of imprisonment and to a two

- year period of supervised release. On ap peal, Medina contends that his conviction should be overturned because the district court failed to advise him of his right to counsel and of its obligation to apply the Sentencing Guidelines.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 24, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-51188 Document: 00512846586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2014No. 13

- 51188

We have reviewed th ese question s for plain error. See United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 58

- 59 (2002). To show plain error, Medina must show

a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such

a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See i d. The district court f ail ed to advise Medina of his right to counsel, appointed if necessary, at tr ia l and at every stage of the proceeding. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11( b)(1)(D). The error did not affect Medina’s substantial rights, however. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. Medina was represented initially by appointed counsel and did not equivocate in e ntering his guilty plea . He has not shown that there i s a “reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea

. ” United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004 ) ; see United States v. Cuevas

- Andrade , 232 F.3d 440, 445 (5th Cir. 2000). Medina further contends that the district court did not address him personally and did not advise him adequately that it was obligated to consult the Guidelines. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11( b)(1)(M). Because the record does not support th ese contention s , n o error is discernible , plain or otherwise. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-51188 Document: 00512846586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2014
**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**

The undersigned, Steve Bajic, President, Secretary, Treasurer and a director of Goldrange Resources, Inc. (Principal Executive Officer), 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Goldrange Resources, Inc. for the interim period ended September 30, 2006 (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 results of operations of Goldrange Resources, Inc.

Dated:  November 8, 2006

 

/s/ Steve Bajic                                                                

Steve Bajic

President, Secretary, Treasurer 

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial 

Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Goldrange Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Goldrange Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

CW901812.1
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      Pursuant To**


**Section
      906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





The
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
      that:




1.  This
      quarterly report of Affinity Media International Corp. 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 results of operation of Affinity Media International
      Corp.


Date:
        November 18 ,
        2007
 By:
              /s/ Howard
                CohlHoward
                CohlPresident,
                  Treasurer and Director
                (Principal financial and accounting
                  officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Affinity Media International Corp. and
      will
      be retained by Affinity Media International Corp. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60511 Summary Calendar

MARIO CHO

- AJANEL , Petitioner

v. LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 282 784

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mario Cho

- Ajanel petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen his in absentia removal proceedings and dismissing his appeal. Cho

- Ajanel raises two due process claims in his petition for review: (1)
the IJ should have reopened the removal hearing b ecause Cho

- Ajanel did not

r eceive notice thereof in h is native language and (2) the BIA ’s summary

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 3, 2015 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 14-60511 Document: 00513256893 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2015N o. 14

- 60511

2 affirmance of the IJ’s order, without opi nion, deprives this court of a sufficient
basis for reviewing the reasonableness of the BIA’s action.
T his court has previously held that “sections 1229(a)(1) and (b)(1) do not require notice in the alien’s native language.” Ek Hong Djie v. Holder , 310 F. App’x 720, 721 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, as Cho

- Ajanel correctly concedes , his argument regarding the BIA’s summa ry affirmance procedure s is foreclosed in this circuit

. See S oadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 832

- 33 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that BIA’s summary affirmance procedures “ do not deprive this court of a basis for judicial review and

. . . do not violate due process ” ). Cho

- Ajanel invites this court to revisit Ek Hong Djie and Soadjede , a rgu ing
that t hose cases fail to appreciate the extent to which the claimed deprivations
undermine aliens’ established due process rights to notice and judicial review

. W e decline the invitation. See Jacobs v. Nat ’ l Drug Intelligence Ctr ., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008)

. The petition for review is DENIED. Case: 14-60511 Document: 00513256893 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2015
# Holcim Cement

**APENs: Kiln System**

**year NOx [tpy]**  **SO2 [tpy] PM/PM10 [tpy]**  **Clinker (C)**

**Production [tpy] NOx [lb/tons** 

**C] SO2** 

**[lb/tons C] PM/PM10** 

**[lb/tons C] NOx [tpy]**  **SO2 [tpy]**

2004 2741.3 780.6 1,641,423 3.34 0.95 3,129.6 891.2

2005 2572.3 371.5 59.7 1,642,740 3.13 0.45 0.07 2,934.3 423.8

2006 3098.0 366.4 1,686,451 3.67 0.43 3,442.3 407.1

2007 2439.7 188.9 68.62 1,361,523 3.58 0.28 0.10 3,357.8 260.0

2008 2287.0 305.8 47.23 1,332,888 3.43 0.46 0.07 3,215.3 429.9

**Average Rates:** 2,628 402.6 58.5 **3.43 0.51**  **0.08** 3,216 482.4 **Projected Annual Emissions at**

**Permitted Production**
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED KYLE CHRISTIANSEN , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 21

- 1755 LT Case No. 2020

- 304419

- CFDB STAT E OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed July 12, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County , Dennis Craig, J udge. Matthew J

. Metz, Pu blic D efender, and A li L

. Hansen , Assistan t Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, an d L

. C harlene Matthews, A ssistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. A FFIRMED.

LAMBERT , C.J. , COHEN and EDWARDS , J J. , concur.
# Euroopa Liidu C 296A/3. a

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 296A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 65. aastakäik3. august 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 296A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

65. aastakäik3. august 2022

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Teated |
| | HALDUSMENETLUSED |
| | Ühisettevõte Fusion for Energy |
| 2022/C 296 A/01 | Teade, millega muudetakse ITERi ja tuumasünteesienergeetika arendamise Euroopa ühisettevõtte (F4E) teadet Teade vaba ametikoha kohta: direktor (ajutine teenistuja – palgaaste AD 14) — COM/2022/20086( ELT C 285 A, 26.7.2022 ) | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

V   Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Ühisettevõte Fusion for Energy

2022/C 296 A/01

Teade, millega muudetakse ITERi ja tuumasünteesienergeetika arendamise Euroopa ühisettevõtte (F4E) teadet Teade vaba ametikoha kohta: direktor (ajutine teenistuja – palgaaste AD 14) — COM/2022/20086( ELT C 285 A, 26.7.2022 )

( ELT C 285 A, 26.7.2022 )

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

V Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Ühisettevõte Fusion for Energy

| 3.8.2022 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2022

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 296/1

---

Teade, millega muudetakse ITERi ja tuumasünteesienergeetika arendamise Euroopa ühisettevõtte (F4E) teadet „Teade vaba ametikoha kohta: direktor (ajutine teenistuja – palgaaste AD 14) — COM/2022/20086“

(
  Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 285 A, 26. juuli 2022
  )

(2022/C 296 A/01)

Leheküljel 5, alajao „Teenistustingimused“ kuuendas lõigus

| asendatakse | „Tööle saab asuda alates 1. jaanuarist 2024.“ |
| --- | --- |

asendatakse

„Tööle saab asuda alates 1. jaanuarist 2024.“

| järgmisega: | „Tööle saab asuda alates 1. jaanuarist 2023.“ |
| --- | --- |

järgmisega:

järgmisega:

„Tööle saab asuda alates 1. jaanuarist 2023.“

---
From: <TShumway@TEP.com> 

 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Cc: <EBakken@Tep.com>, <APulsifer@TEP.com>, <RKane@TEP.com>, <SDevlin@TEP.com>

 Date: 07/26/2010 07:19 PM 

 Subject: Springerville Generating Station- Steam Electric ELG Questionnaire Request for Extension

<<Springerville Generating Station Request for Extension.pdf>>

This letter will be followed by the original copy sent via US Postal

Service.

Tracy Shumway

Department Assistant
Springerville Generating Station

Tucson Electric Power Company

928. 337.7426

 (See attached file: Springerville Generating Station Request for

Extension.pdf)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q as
of June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000846919
<NAME> ESSEX INTERNATIONAL INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           8,497
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  235,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,872
<INVENTORY>                                    234,135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               481,493
<PP&E>                                         400,127
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,232
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 895,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          176,893
<BONDS>                                        402,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                     248,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   895,716
<SALES>                                        864,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               864,109
<CGS>                                          696,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  696,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,670
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,670
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.50
        

</TABLE>
## UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

YOB

, GALLAGHER

, KRAUSS

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v.

Inmate SOLOMON E. SMITH

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 201 10 70 6

Headquarters, US Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth

Jeffery R. Nance

, Military Judge

Colonel Fred P. Taylor

, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Colonel Patricia A. Ham, JA; Captain Ja ck D. Einhorn , JA (on

brief).

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA; Major Robert A. Rodrigues

, JA ; Captain Steve T. Nam, JA (on brief).

31 Ju ly 20 13

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

KRAUSS, Judge :

A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial

, convicted appellant,

contrary to his plea s , of mutiny, damaging military property, and assault

consummated by a battery in violation of Article s 94, 108, and 128

, Uniform Code

of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § § 8 94, 908, 928 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ].

Appellant was acquitted of kidnapping, disobedience, and two other specifications of

assault consummated by a battery. The convening authority appr oved the adjudged

sentence to twenty

- five months confinement.

T his case is before the court for review un der Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant

assigns two errors, one of which merits brief remark and relief.

Appellant asserts that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to

support his convictions for damaging military property and assault consummated by

a battery. The government concedes that the evidence is insufficient to supportSMITH

— ARMY 20110 706

2

appellant’s conviction for damage to property but sufficient to support the battery

conviction. We accept the government’s concession but also find the evidence

factually insufficient to establish that the battery at issue was accom plished with a

metal table leg. See generally United States v. Washington , 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F.

2002)

. S ee also United States v. Savage , 72 M.J. 560, 567 (Army Ct. Crim. App.

2013).

In acco rdance with above, and after reviewing the entire record and the

parties’ briefs, the finding of guilty as to Charge IV and its S pecification is set aside

and dismissed. The court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of

S pecification 3 of Charge V, as finds that appellant did, o n or about 12 August 2010,

assault SPC A.K., who then was and was then known by the accused to be a person

then having and in the execution of military police duties, by striking him in the

face. T he remaining findings of guilty are AFFIRMED

. Reassessing the sentence

on the basis of the error s noted, the entire record, and in accordance with the

principles of United States v. Sales , 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986), and United States v.

Moffeit , 63 M.J. 4 0 (C.A.A.F. 2006), to include the factors identified by Judge Baker

in his concurring opinion in Moffeit , the sentence is AFFIRMED

.

Senior Judge YOB and Judge GALLAGHER concur.

FOR THE COURT:

ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court