alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**INDIVIDUAL STUDY SUMMARY**

****

**The rest of this page must remain blank.**

**NOTE:**

**Every page of this document must be in portrait orientation.  It is permissible to rotate text on certain pages to accommodate a wider format, but do not rotate the page itself.**
# L_2005064EN.01007001.xml

| 10.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 64/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 64/70

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 132/2004

of 24 September 2004

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 113/2004 of 9 July 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 113/2004 of 9 July 2004 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2004/214/EC of 3 March 2004 amending Decision 2000/40/EC as regards the period of validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to refrigerators (2), is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2004/214/EC of 3 March 2004 amending Decision 2000/40/EC as regards the period of validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to refrigerators (2), is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 2el (Commission Decision 2000/40/EC) of Annex XX to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32004 D 0214: Commission Decision 2004/214/EC of 3 March 2004 (OJ L 67, 5.3.2004, p. 23).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32004 D 0214: Commission Decision 2004/214/EC of 3 March 2004 (OJ L 67, 5.3.2004, p. 23).’

Article 2

The texts of Decision 2004/214/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 25 September 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 24 September 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kjartan JÓHANNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 376, 23.12.2004, p. 51.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 67, 5.3.2004, p. 23.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### Michael D. CREED, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3638.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Feb. 3, 1978.

Mark R. Moderow, Anchorage, for appellant.

Eugene P. Murphy, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Joseph D. Balfe, Dist Atty., Anchorage, Av-rum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for ap-pellee.

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NO WITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

After his plea of guilty to attempted robbery (AS 11.15.240)1 and nolo contendere to the crime of shooting with intent to kill, wound and maim (AS 11.15.150),2 Michael Creed was found guilty of those crimes. The court sentenced Creed to serve five years for the crime of attempted robbery and ten years for the crime of shooting with intent to kill, wound or maim, with the' sentences to run concurrently. Because of *1380the defendant’s age, 19, the court added the proviso that he was to be eligible for parole at any time.3 Creed seeks review on the length of the two sentences.

From the facts indicated in the pre-sen-tence report, it appears that Creed shot a grocery store clerk five times. When Creed was then unsuccessful in opening the cash register, he threatened to shoot the clerk again if the clerk did not furnish instructions for opening the safe. After receiving the instructions, Creed took money from the cash register.

The concurrent sentences imposed were considerably under the maximum provided for in the statutes.

Although Creed had no prior criminal convictions,4 we have frequently held that violent crimes involving physical injury to innocent people are to be regarded as our most serious offenses and are not to be treated lightly.5

We conclude that the trial court was not clearly mistaken in imposing the sentences. *McLain v. State,*519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974).

AFFIRMED.

1

. AS 11.15.240 provides:

> *Robbery,*A person who, by force or violence, or by putting in fear, steals and takes anything of value from the person of another is guilty of robbery, and is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than 15 years nor less than one year.

AS 11.05.020 provides, in part, that an attempt may be punished by a term of imprisonment not more than half the longest period prescribed as punishment for the crime.

2

. AS 11.15.150 provides:

> *Shooting, stabbing or cutting with intent to kill, wound or maim.*A person who maliciously shoots, stabs, cuts, or shoots at another person with intent to kill, wound, or maim him is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than 20 years nor less than one year.

3

. We note, however, that AS 33.15.080 provides that no prisoner may be released on parole who has not served at least one-third of the period of confinement to which he has been sentenced.

4

. Creed does have a history of drug dependence, and on the evening in question, he ingested both alcohol and drugs.

5

.Ames *v. State,*533 P.2d 246, 250 n. 8 (Alaska 1975), *cited in Mutschler v. State,*560 P.2d 377, 381 (Alaska 1977); *see also, Dawson v. State,*557 P.2d 142, 142-43 (Alaska 1976); *State v. Armantrout,*483 P.2d 696, 698 (Alaska 1971).
#### In the Matter of Anonymous.

Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County,

July 1, 1959.

*Caragol •& Carson*for petitioners.

*Irving A. Oremland*for respondent.

John D. Bennett, S.

The question before this court is

whether or not a person convicted of a Federal offense loses his civil rights under section 111 of the Domestic Relations Law. A preliminary decision dated June 27, 1958 was handed down in this matter *(Matter of Anonymous,*12 Misc 2d 1073), in which this court pointed out the conflict between *Matter of O’Connor*v. *Cohen*(173 Misc. 419) and *Nastasi*v. *State of New York*(186 Misc. 1051) and indicated a favoring of the *O’Connor (supra)*doctrine, largely on the basis of the Report of the Law Revision Commission therein quoted.*

Further research has required a modification of this previous opinion. The recent decisions in other phases of civil rights follow the *Nastasi (supra)*doctrine. *(Matter of Johnson,*202 Misc. 751 [Surrogate’s Ct., Kings County, 1952].)

It is obvious that the theory expounded by the court in *Matter of O’Connor*v. *Cohen (supra)*is utterly irreconcilable with the *Nastasi*case *(supra).*However, if we eliminate what the court said and consider only what it did, we find that the *O’Connor*decision *{supra)*might have been justified even if the conviction had been in this State of a felony under State laws. Section 510 *692of the Penal Law does not suspend civil rights where execution of the sentence is suspended or the person is released on parol. The candidate was not in jail. He was walking the streets, a free man, on bail pending an appeal. This is similar in nature to a suspension of sentence and is, in fact, a suspension of the sentence until the determination of the appeal.

Turning to the Report of the Law Revision Commission, we find the statement *“*a sentence to a federal prison does not suspend rights ” later followed by the explanation that *“*[A] crime punishable in a federal prison is not necessarily a felony” (1946 Report of N. Y. Law Rev. Comm., p. 184). The prior statement should read, *“*sentence to a federal prison, alone, does not suspend rights ”. In that sense, the statement is wholly in accord with the *Nastasi (supra)*doctrine as the Federal offense of which a person is convicted must be a felony under the laws of this State.

As so modified, the principle which must be applied by this court in this proceeding is that if the father is now serving a sentence in a Federal penitentiary for a crime which under New York law would be a felony, he has lost his civil rights.

No order need be submitted hereon.

A violation of section 2312 of title 18 of the United States Code is a felony under New York law *(People*v. *Morgan,*270 App. Div. 859 [2d Dept., 1946]). The defendant was sentenced February, 1958 to imprisonment for three years. At the commencement of this adoption proceeding he was in prison. He had lost his civil rights. His consent to the adoption was not necessary and he is entitled to no notice of this proceeding.

*

 1946 Report of N. Y. Law Rev. Comm., p. 184.— [Rep.
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 12284]

# ACTION:

Public notice.

# SUMMARY:

Proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Cultural Property of Algeria.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Virginia Herrmann, Cultural Heritage Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (telephone: 202-632-6301; email:                         *culprop@state.gov*). Include “Algeria” in the subject line.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Cultural Property of Algeria is hereby proposed.

                    A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, the Designated List of categories of material currently restricted from import into the United States, and related information can be found at the Cultural Heritage Center website:                     *http://culturalheritage.state.gov.*

Allison R. Davis Lehmann,

Executive Director, Cultural Property Advisory Committee, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2023-27323 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Refusal of Entry Related to Inspections and Investigations 

ICWI0113.02 Page 1 of 1 

Issuing Authority: Steven A. Karli 

Issue Date: 17Dec10 

Expiration Date: 17Dec13 

Source Document and Issue Date or Edition: ICSOP0013.01, The Inspection Proper

Background: Under normal circumstances, entry into private facilities to conduct official 

government business is not challenged with the proper credentialing. CVB Inspection & 

Compliance (IC) Inspectors are provided the VS Form 1-4 Identification Card and a Veterinary 

Biologics (CVB) Inspector Badge which is uniquely numbered and assigned. These two forms of 

identification are considered official government issued identification and are to be used to obtain 

access to facilities for inspection and investigation purposes. In the event entry is challenged, 

follow these procedures. 

REFUSAL OF ENTRY/ACCESS 

If, after the Specialist or Inspector has made proper identification as stated in ICSOP0013, Section 

5.1, the firm denies the Specialist or Inspector access to the licensed premises, to areas of the 

premises or to documents that are germane to the inspection, then the following should be initiated: 

Specialist or Ensure you do have the authority to see the premises, area or document. 

Inspector 

Explain your authority to inspect (Section 157 of Title 5, U. S. Code and 9 CFR 

Part 115). Be polite, assertive and patient, but not belligerent. If possible, explain 

this in front of another APHIS employee acting as a witness. 

Notify the IC Director or the CVB Compliance Section Leader, if the firm still 

denies you access. 

Follow the directions of the IC Director or Section Leader. If a witness was not 

present during the explanation of the authority to inspect, you may be advised to 

contact the VS Area Office and arrange for an APHIS witness to accompany you 

for another attempt to gain access. The CVB office can assist with contacting other 

APHIS personnel per guidance from the IC Director or Compliance Section 

Leader. 

IC Director or Check that the Specialist or Inspector was properly identified to the firm. 

Compliance 

Section Leader Check that the premises, area or document is under APHIS authority to inspect. 

Depending on the circumstances and seriousness of the situation, the IC Director 

will decide what procedures are to be followed and coordinate all activities. 

Some options available are: 

1. Call the liaison or the person in charge of the firm. Discuss the problem, explain the 

authority and generally try to convince the person to allow access. 

2. If necessary, contact the Regional Director for Investigative & Enforcement Services 

(IES) or AVIC of the area and arrange for an APHIS witness to accompany the Specialist 

or Inspector for another attempt to gain access. 

3. Issue a stop distribution and sale on all products until access is allowed. 

4. Notify the CVB Director and contact USDA Office of General Counsel. 

5. Keep the Specialist or Inspector informed of events.
協調禽場生物安全的檢查表

如果您看到疾病跡象,請立即採取行動! 電話號碼

獸醫

合作推廣辦事處

州獸醫/動物或家禽診斷實驗室

USDA 866.536.7593

動物與植物健康檢驗服務(Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service)

良好的生物安全是保持禽群健康的一個關鍵部分,並且需要良好的協調措施來保持。這就是為什麽

每個飼養家禽的設施都需要一名生物安全協調員。協調員會制定您禽場的生物安全計劃,並確保每

個人都遵循它。該人士應瞭解生物安全原則,但不必是一位家禽獸醫。生物安全協調員是所有生物

安全方面的引導者。他們處理小細節和大事務,使生物安全成為“每一天每一次”的例行工作。

如果您發現或懷疑有任何異常,請立即致電您的禽群主管、獸醫或合作推廣辦事處(cooperative 

extension office)。請使用此表單記錄您所在地區的聯絡人電話號碼。您行動越早,就越容易將疾病

控制在一個禽群中。

報告病禽

檢查背面的清單,瞭解有助於保持您禽群

健康的提示。 √
檢查表:生物安全協調員提示

USDA是平等機會提供者、雇主和出借者。

動物與植物健康檢驗服務(Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service)

項目援助編號2235-10ZH-TW | 2019年10月簽發

本檢查表是為所有禽場或所有級別的生物安全協調員提供的一般性指南。具體職責視飼養家禽的種

類及規模而定。

√

使用poultrybiosecurity.org上的信息手冊和模

板著手制定生物安全計劃。商業養殖者應確保其

特定場址計劃遵循《國家禽類改良計劃》(National 

Poultry Improvement Plan)的生物安全原則。

評估禽場存在的風險並首先解決其中最大的風

險。每個禽場都是獨一無二的,在生物安全上都有

自己的優勢和劣勢。瞭解這些將有助於您確定優

先順序。

專注於您能控制的事情。最好的計劃是切實可行

的計劃。它涵蓋了禽場的常見程序,並提供了人們

可遵循的明確步驟。

與現場人員一起制定並執行生物安全計劃。每位

雇員都有責任維護禽場的生物安全並保護禽群,

無論是涉及設施的結構和佈局,還是照顧禽群的

日常任務。

如需瞭解更多關於如何保持禽群健康的信息,請關註Facebook和Twitter上的保護禽群

(Defend the Flock),並訪問 www.aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock。

對定期進入現場的所有人員進行生物安全協議方面的培

訓,並將培訓記錄在案。

檢查該計劃是否得到遵守。如果違反了生物安全協議,即

採取糾正措施。

每年或現場發生任何影響生物安全的變更時,即對計劃進

行審查。記錄本次審查並根據需要對計劃作出更新。

調整生物安全計劃以應對不斷變化的風險或建議。例如,

如果當地爆發禽流感,考慮加強生物安全措施,並將這些

臨時的、更嚴格的措施寫入計劃。
#### State v. Napoleon

18083

2/28/95

Affirmed
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2015

t1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2015

151392

TYRONE TOWNSHIP,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151392

COA: 324108

Livingston CC: 14-027948-AV

KATLIN ROSE RUFLI,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration, as on leave granted, limited to whether the district court abused its 

discretion in awarding sanctions to the plaintiff and whether the circuit court erred in 

affirming that decision. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are 

not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 99.2

       FINANCIAL FEDERAL CORPORATION DECLARES QUARTERLY DIVIDEND

          AND ANNOUNCES INCREASE IN SHARE REPURCHASE PROGRAM


NEW YORK, NY:  September 24, 2008 - Financial Federal Corporation
(NYSE: FIF) today announced its Board of Directors declared a $0.15
per share quarterly dividend on its common stock.  The dividend is
payable October 24, 2008 to stockholders of record at the close of
business on October 10, 2008.  The dividend rate is the same as the
prior quarter.

The Company also announced its Board of Directors authorized a $23.3
million increase in its common stock and convertible debt repurchase
program.  There is now $50.0 million available for repurchases under
the program.  The Company may repurchase its common stock and
convertible debt at times and prices it considers appropriate.
Repurchases will depend on liquidity, receivables growth, leverage,
operating cash flow, and market and other conditions.  Repurchases
may be made in the open market or in private transactions and the
Company is not obligated to make any repurchases.

The Company currently has 25.7 million shares of common stock and
$175.0 million of convertible debt outstanding.  The repurchase
program was established in June 2007 and 0.9 million shares of
common stock have been repurchased for $23.3 million.


This press release contains certain "forward-looking" statements
concerning the Company's expectations.  Actual results could differ
materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements
because they involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions.
Information about risk factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially is included in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended July 31, 2008.  Risk factors include (i) an
economic slowdown (ii) the inability to collect finance receivables
and the sufficiency of the allowance for credit losses (iii) the
inability to obtain capital or maintain liquidity (iv) rising short-
term market interest rates and adverse yield curve changes (v)
increased competition (vi) the inability to retain key employees and
(vii) adverse conditions in the construction and road transportation
industries.  The Company is not obligated to update or revise
forward-looking statements for subsequent events or circumstances.


Financial Federal Corporation is an independent financial services
company specializing in financing construction, road transportation
and refuse equipment through installment sales and leasing programs
for dealers, manufacturers and end users nationwide.  Please visit
www.financialfederal.com for more information.


CONTACT:  Steven F. Groth
          Chief Financial Officer
          (212) 599-8000
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 60277 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RAHIM WILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 13

- 1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rahim Williams appeals the 120

- month, guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, contending that the district court committed procedural error by applying the first degree
murder cross

- reference throu gh U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(B). Williams argues that the testimony adduced at the sentencing hearing failed to sufficiently

* 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 f orth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED March 6, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60277 Document: 00515336238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2020No. 19

- 60277

2 establish that he used the gun in question to shoot and kill Stephanie Mejia three days prior to his arrest. In light of forensic evidence linking the gun recovered from Williams to Mejia ’s murder , evidence placing Williams in the vicinity of Mejia’s murder at the relevant time, and the recorded police statement of Mercedez McCarty, Williams’s ex

- girlfriend, detailing his admission t o shooting and kill ing Mejia, the district court’s finding that a preponderance of the evidence est a blished Williams’s guilt is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United States
v. Nava , 624 F.3d 226, 229 (5th Cir. 2010) ; United States v. Coleman , 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010)

. While Williams points to his and his sister’s alibi testimony as well as McCarty’s testimony that her inculpatory police statement was coerced, the court found all three witnesses ’ courtroom testimony wholly lac king in credibility , and “[w] e will not second guess the district court’s factual findings as to the credibility of witnesses.” United States v. Garza , 118 F.3d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 1997). In any event, “[w]here there are two permissible views of the evide nce, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Hebert , 813 F.3d 551, 560 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ; see also United States v. Vargas

- Ocampo , 747 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (rejecting “equipoise rule” in criminal cases addressing guilt or innocence (and, thus, having a higher burden than at sentencing))

. Williams fails to show error in applying the § 2K2.1(c)(1)(B) cross

reference in this case. See United States v . Carey , 589 F.3d 187, 196 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-60277 Document: 00515336238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2020
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 620 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 620

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 23, 2016.
    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the 
Honorable Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States.
    Resolved, That the House tenders its deep sympathy to the members of the 
family of the late Associate Justice in their bereavement.
    Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the Senate and to 
the Supreme Court and transmit a copy of the same to the family of the late 
Associate Justice.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark 
of respect to the memory of the late Associate Justice.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Tanaka v. Tanaka

18746

5/21/98

Affirmed in part, Vacated in part & Remanded