alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(July 9, 1991)

#### In the Matter of Thuryo A. Sneed, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

Per Curiam.

Respondent is á Texas attorney admitted to practice in New York State by this court in 1980.

Petitioner Committee on Professional Standards moves for *311an order pursuant to section 806.19 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.19) imposing discipline upon respondent by reason of his recent suspension from the practice of law in the State of Texas.

It appears from petitioner’s papers that respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of a misdemeanor involving a 1985 unlawful conversion of a United States Treasury check. Respondent was sentenced to a period of unsupervised probation in December 1989. Thereafter, he was suspended from the practice of law in Texas for a period of 36 months, effective February 1, 1991. The last 18 months of the 36-month period is to be a probationary period. In responding papers, respondent states that he has appealed his Texas suspension but also states that he does not object to the imposition of reciprocal discipline in New York State if that discipline is less than or the same as that meted out by Texas.

In view of respondent’s suspension in Texas and his lack of objection to similar reciprocal discipline in this State, petitioner’s motion is granted, it is further determined that the ends of justice will be served by imposing upon respondent the same 18-month period of active suspension from practice in this State as was imposed in Texas *(see, Matter of Weiss,*164 AD2d 959).

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent is suspended for 18 months effective immediately and until further order of this court, the period of suspension to correspond with the period of active suspension in the State of Texas. Respondent may apply for reinstatement upon furnishing satisfactory proof that he has been reinstated to the active practice of law in Texas and has otherwise complied with the requirements of section 806.12 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.12), and it is further

Ordered, that for the period of suspension respondent be and hereby is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or agent, or as clerk or employee of another; and he thereby is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor at law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice with relation thereto; and it is further

Ordered, that respondent shall comply with the provisions of section 806.9 of the rules of this court regulating the *312conduct of disbarred, suspended or resigned attorneys, a copy of which section is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
# C_2009141EN.01003501.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/35

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-283/08) (1)

1

2009/C 141/66

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
# C_2011238EN.01001501.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Imagion v OHIM (DYNAMIC HD)

(Case T-463/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark DYNAMIC HD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through usage - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 238/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Imagion AG (Trierweiler, Germany) (represented by: H. Blatzheim, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 August 2008 (Case R 488/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark DYNAMIC HD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Imagion AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Imagion AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008

1

---
1

Medina, Dayana

From: Kordzi, Joe

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:24 AM

To: Medina, Dayana

Subject: FW: Supporting documentation for Entergy White Bluff Wet FGD O&M Costs

Attachments: removed.txt; 2011 S&L O&M Costs.pdf

FYI

From: Triplett, David [mailto:dtripl1@entergy.com]  

Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 6:13 PM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Cc: JOHNSON, GEORGE; HANTZ, JOSEPH; McQueen, Kelly; Jeremy Jewell; william.bumpers@bakerbotts.com

Subject: Supporting documentation for Entergy White Bluff Wet FGD O&M Costs

Mr. Kordzi,

I understand you spoke yesterday with Jeremy Jewell and requested additional information regarding the O&M costs for

wet FGD presented in Table 4 of the June 10, 2013 Entergy response to EPA comments regarding the White Bluff FFA.   

Please find attached a copy of the table from which these O&M cost estimates were obtained.  This table was prepared

by Sargent and Lundy (S&L) as part of a December 2011 study which considered potential costs for implementation of

both Regional Haze and MATS controls at White Bluff.  Only those costs associated with potential operation of wet FGD

were utilized for the purpose of the FFA.  Unrelated O&M costs (such as activated carbon) were not utilized in the

FFA.  These costs were used in the FFA as they were the most recent wet FGD O&M cost estimates available to Entergy

in June 2013.  These projected O&M costs are lower than those which were estimated by S&L in the October 2008 Wet

vs. Dry FGD study which was included with our June 2013 response.   

                 

If you have any questions regarding the attached documentation, please let us know.   

David Triplett, P.E.

Air Lead, Arkansas Environmental Support

Entergy Services, Inc.

8-750-4030 (internal) | (501) 377-4030 (office) | (501) 650-1752 (cell) 

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
# C_2008223EN.01003402.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier (France) lodged on 3 July 2008 — Ministère public v Ignacio Pédro Santesteban Goicoechea

(Case C-296/08)

(2008/C 223/54)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Montpellier

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministère public

Applicant:

Defendant: Ignacio Pédro Santesteban Goicoechea

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the failure of a Member State (in this case Spain) to give notification under Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) of its intention to continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements preclude, by reason of the word ‘replace’ in Article 31 of that Framework Decision, that Member State from using with another Member State (in this case France), which has made a statement under Article 32 of the Framework Decision, procedures other than that of the European arrest warrant? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the failure of a Member State (in this case Spain) to give notification under Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) of its intention to continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements preclude, by reason of the word ‘replace’ in Article 31 of that Framework Decision, that Member State from using with another Member State (in this case France), which has made a statement under Article 32 of the Framework Decision, procedures other than that of the European arrest warrant?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the above question is in the negative, do the provisos made by the executing Member State permit that State to apply a Convention of 27 September 1996, thus prior to 1 January 2004, but which entered into force in that executing State after that date of 1 January 2004 referred to in Article 32 of the Framework Decision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the above question is in the negative, do the provisos made by the executing Member State permit that State to apply a Convention of 27 September 1996, thus prior to 1 January 2004, but which entered into force in that executing State after that date of 1 January 2004 referred to in Article 32 of the Framework Decision?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

1

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00216-CR

EX PARTE M.A.R.

From the County Court at Law No. 2

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1310051A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Miguel Angel Reyes filed a Motion for Extension to File a Late Appeal and a 

Motion for Leave of Court to File a Late Appeal. The record shows that the trial court 

entered an order denying Appellant’s writ of habeas corpus on February 24, 2015, and 

Reyes filed his motion notice of appeal and Motion for Extension of Time to File a Late 

Appeal on June 8, 2015. 

By letter dated July 10, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified Reyes that the 

appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared that the Motion for Extension of 

Time to File a Late Appeal was untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); TEX. R. APP. P. 

26.3.. The Clerk also warned Reyes that the appeal would be dismissed unless, within 
Ex Parte M.A.R. Page 2

21 days of the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. Reyes did not file a response. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 3, 2015

Do not publish 

[CR25]
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2012

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., on 
Tuesday, September 11, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the 
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed 
expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use 
later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized, and that the 
first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the 
Republicans controlling the final half; that at 11 a.m. there be a 
moment of silence in observance of the 11th anniversary of the attacks 
on September 11, 2011; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. 
until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
#### SHAW et al. v. STURGEON et al.

No. 35822.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 27, 1954.

Jumes F. Haning, Wewoka, and Jas. S. Hepburn, Guthrie, for plaintiffs in error.

Allen G. Nichols and Walter Billingsley, Wewoka, for defendants in error.

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

Hattie M. Shaw, individually and as ad-ministratrix of the estate of W. A. Shaw, deceased, filed her final account whereupon Mary Sturgeon filed an objection to the account, and, from an adverse ruling, appealed from the order and judgment of the County Court to the District Court of Seminole County. Hattie M. Shaw filed a motion to dismiss which was overruled. The appeal is from the order overruling the motion to dismiss.

A motion to dismiss has been lodged in this court for the reason that the order overruling the motion to dismiss made by the district court is not a final order. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Patterson, 73 Okl. 234, 175 P. 934, Arthur v. Arthur, Okl.Sup., 258 P.2d 1191, and In re Cochran’s Estate, 48 Okl. 672, 149 P. 1089. In Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Patterson, supra, it is said:

> “An appeal does not lie to this court from an intermediate or interlocutory order made during the pendency of an action, which intermediate or interlocutory order leaves the parties in court to have the. issues tried on the merits, unless the appeal sought to be taken *463comes within some one of the special orders from which an appeal is authorized by statute prior to final judgment in the main action.”

And in In re Cochran’s Estate, supra, it is stated :

> “An order of the court overruling a motion to dismiss an appeal without final judgment in the case is not an ap-pealable order, but simply leaves the case standing in that court, the same as if no such motion had been made.” Appeal dismissed.

HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, O’NEAL and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
Order entered June 18, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01503-CV

HOSSEIN JAHANSHAHI, Appellant

V.

MASOOMEH JANGRAVI, Appellee

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-03913

ORDER

Despite twice being given additional time to file an amended brief that complies with the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant has failed to file the requested brief. 

Accordingly, the appeal will be submitted on the brief filed March 16, 2015.

We ORDER appellee to file her brief no later than July 20, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4606 

AN ACT 

To provide that applications under the Natural Gas Act 

for the importation or exportation of small volumes of 

natural gas shall be granted without modification or 

delay. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4606 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Small Scale 

3 LNG Certainty and Access Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SMALL SCALE EXPORTATION OR IMPORTATION OF 

5 NATURAL GAS. 

6 Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 

7 717b(c)) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘For purposes’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘(1) For purposes’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(2) For purposes of subsection (a), and in addition 

12 to any importation or exportation of natural gas described 

13 in paragraph (1), importation or exportation of natural 

14 gas shall be deemed to be consistent with the public inter15 est, and an application for such importation or exportation 

16 shall be granted without modification or delay, if— 

17 ‘‘(A) the application for such importation or ex18 portation proposes to import or export a volume of 

19 natural gas that does not exceed 0.14 billion cubic 

20 feet per day; and 

21 ‘‘(B) the Commission’s approval of such appli22 cation does not require an environmental impact 
3 

•HR 4606 EH

1 statement or an environmental assessment under the 

2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 6, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4606 

AN ACT 

To provide that applications under the Natural Gas 

modification or delay. volumes of natural gas shall be granted without Act for the importation or exportation of small
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7898
JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-1012-R) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 10, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the dist rict court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. United States , No. CA-96-1012-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 22 & Dec. 6, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2010179EN.01003502.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Ravensburger v OHIM — Educa Borras (EDUCA Memory game)

(Case T-243/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark EDUCA Memory game - Earlier national and international word marks MEMORY - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of similarity between the signs - Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 74 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 76 and 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2010/C 179/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ravensburger AG (Ravensburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Educa Borras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 597/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ravensburger AG and Educa Borras, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Ravensburger AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ravensburger AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

---
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 21, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 13, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 143 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-118, CP2024-124.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-28058 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the Utah Inland Port Authority (WB23-72—12/20/23) for permission to use select data from the Board's annual 2021 masked Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under Docket No. WB23-72.

The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

*Contact:*                     Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.                

Brendetta Jones,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2023-28568 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P