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

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Case C-250/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/19/EC - Access to electronic communications networks and associated facilities - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 36/22)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-250/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Zavvos and M. Shotter) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 14 June 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 201, 07.08.2004.

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 189 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24865]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AK-040-1410-00; AA-82056]


Realty Action; FLPMA Sec. 302 Permit, Innoko Mining District

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of realty action, permit of public land.

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

SUMMARY: North Star Exploration Inc. has submitted an application for 
authorization to explore and evaluate Native selected lands for hard 
rock mineral potential. North Star has entered a joint venture with 
Doyon Limited and MTNT Limited to assess the land and assure the best 
information possible to prioritize lands they have selected for 
conveyance.
    The land has been examined and found suitable for permit under the 
provisions of Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act 
(FLPMA), of 1976, and 43 CFR Part 2920.
    The proposed area is located at Yankee Creek within the Innoko 
Mining District (Ophir area) of Southwestern Alaska. The legal land 
description is as follows:

Seward Meridian, Alaska

T. 33 N., R. 37 W., Sec. 6
T. 33 N., R 38 W., Sec. 14

    Containing 1 acre, more or less.

    The permittee shall reimburse the United States for reasonable 
administrative fees and other costs incurred by the United States in 
processing the permit and for monitoring of construction, operation, 
maintenance and rehabilitation of the land authorized.
    The reimbursement of cost shall be in accordinace with the 
provisions of 43 CFR 2920.6. The permit will be offered for a term of 2 
years and will require the permittee to pay rent annually at no less 
than fair market value.
    Detailed information concerning this action is available for review 
at the office of the Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage District 
Office, 6881 Abbott Loop Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99507-2599.

DATES: Interested parties may submit comments until November 13, 2000 
to the Field Manager, Anchorage Field Office, 6881 Abbott Loop Road, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-2599. In the absence of a timely objection, 
this proposal shall become the final decision of the Department of the 
Interior.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rackley, Anchorage Field 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 6881 Abbott Loop Road, Anchorage, 
Alaska, 99507-2599; (907) 267-1289 or (800) 478-1263.

    Dated: September 20, 2000.
Peter Ditton,
Acting Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-24865 Filed 9-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|Texas State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|Texas State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
February 2, 2015 

Memorandum 

Subject: Summary of Conference Call with Century Aluminum Representatives 

From: Matt Hakos, RTI 

To: David Putney, EPA/OAQPS 

I. Purpose

 The purpose of the call was to discuss provisions of the Primary Aluminum Risk and 

Technology Review Supplemental Proposal related to PM, metallic HAP and POM primary potline 

and anode bake furnace emission rates. Alternative emissions limits for anode bake furnaces were 

also discussed. 

II. Date and Time 

 The call was held February 02, 2015 between 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. 

III. Attendees

 David Putney, EPA/OAQPS 

 Chuck French, EPA/OAQPS 

 David Green, RTI 

 Matt Hakos, RTI 

 Brandon Coomes, Century Aluminum 

Jamie Coomes, Century Aluminum 

IV. Summary

A. Emission Rates used in MACT Floor Analysis are Misrepresented for the Primary Potline and 

the Anode Bake Furnace 

Brandon Coomes stated that the test results submitted for the ICR were representative of an 

individual stack divided by the total aluminum capacity (for the potline) and the total anode capacity 

(for the bake furnace). As such, primary potline PM, POM and metallic HAP emissions used in the 

MACT floor analysis and risk assessment are one fifth of their actual values (control device has five 

stacks) and anode bake furnace PM and metallic HAP emissions used in the MACT floor analysis 

and risk assessment are one third of their actual values (control device has 3 stacks). To correct for 

these errors, existing primary potline emission rates should be multiplied by five and the existing 

anode bake furnace emission rates should be multiplied by three. 

B. Alternative Emission Limits 

Representatives also requested that the proposed alternative emission limit methodology for cocontrolled new and existing anode bake furnaces be extended for use in PM limit determinations. 

Further information to be provided in comments.
Jennifer Bryant- Oconee 

### EMC- 7/29; 6:45pm • Thank you forthe opportunityto speak today. • Introduction o My name is Jennifer Bryant and Iam the MemberServices Directorat Oconee Electric Membership Cooperative. o Oconee EMC is located in Middle Georgia where we serve approximately 8,700 members in seven counties. • On behalfofOconee EMC, Iask the EPA to withdrawthese proposed rules, and start over. • The cost ofelectricity directly impacts the quality of life in the 7 counties we serve at Oconee EMC in Middle Georgia. Increased costs ofelectricitywill slow economic growth, reducejob opportunities and force families to make tough budget choices. For our most vulnerable members, an increase in the cost ofelectricity could force families to choose between filling up the car with gas, and keeping the lights on. • As a cooperative, all ofthese increased costs will have to be borne by our members, many of whom cannot afford even the tiniest increase in theirweekly expenses. • The cost ofenergy is notthe only concern we have at Oconee EM

### C. We care deeply about our environment and the communities we serve. But support forthe environment and atrue all-ofthe-above energy policy are not mutually exclusive. • Unfortunately, this proposal slams the door on an all-of-the-above strategy. With these rules, the EPA is hand-picking winners and losers. And in the end, the impact ofthese regulations will be statistically irrelevant on the issue ofclimate change. • I urge you to withdrawthis proposal and work with us on a new, common sense approach, that will be atrue "All-of-the Above" energy strategy. • Thank you for the opportunityto speak today.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 185 (Friday, September 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 57401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24388]



[[Page 57401]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2000-45; Exemption Application Nos. 
D-10809 and D-10865]


Grant of Individual Exemption to Amend and Replace Prohibited 
Transaction Exemption (PTE) 99-15, Involving Salomon Smith Barney Inc. 
(Salomon Smith Barney), Located in New York, NY

AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor (the Department).

ACTION: Notice of Technical Correction.

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

    On September 7, 2000, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 54315) a final exemption which amends and replaces PTE 
99-15 (64 FR 1648, April 5, 1999), an exemption granted to Salomon 
Smith Barney. PTE 99-15 relates to the operation of the TRAK 
Personalized Investment Advisory Service product (the TRAK Program) and 
the Trust for Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (the Consulting 
Group).
    On page 54316 of the grant notice, the last sentence of the third 
paragraph of the Supplementary Information, erroneously refers to an 
effective date of July 10, 2000 with respect to Section III(d) of the 
grant notice. Thus, the sentence should be revised to read as follows:

    The Final Exemption is effective as of April 1, 2000 with 
respect to the amendments to Sections II(i) and III(b) of the grant 
notice and the inclusion of new Section III(d) of the grant notice.

    Also on page 54316 of the grant notice, clause (c) of Footnote 1, 
should be revised as follows to describe more accurately the purpose of 
the automated reallocation option:

    (c) adopted an automated reallocation option under the TRAK 
Program which would afford an Independent Plan Fiduciary the option 
of having his or her asset allocation adjusted automatically 
whenever the Consulting Group changes an allocation model;


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jan D. Broady of the Department at 
(202) 219-8881. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of September, 2000.
Ivan L. Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations, Pension and Welfare Benefits 
Administration, Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 00-24388 Filed 9-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|Texas - RRC District 1 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Texas - RRC District 1 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 4     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 54     | 29     | 19     | 2      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Texas - RRC District 5 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### In the Matter of John J. Mallon, Appellant, v George Parness, as Mayor of the Village of Suffern, et al., Respondents.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by *615order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Rosato, J.), entered August 1, 1989 in Rockland County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Board of Trustees of the Village of Suffern terminating petitioner’s position as Police Sergeant.

Petitioner, a seven-year veteran of respondent Village of Suffern Police Department in Rockland County, was promoted to Sergeant in 1988; the exact date of this promotion is sharply contested. There is no dispute, however, that petitioner was notified on April 11, 1989 that "effective immediately, [his] position as sergeant [was] terminated”. Petitioner commenced this proceeding in part to annul the revocation. Respondents separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition. Supreme Court found that as petitioner was demoted during his 26-week probationary period, he was not entitled to a hearing; therefore, the court granted respondents’ motions. Petitioner urges on appeal that the existence of a genuine fact question concerning the effective date of his promotion precludes awarding summary judgment; we agree.

Being the moving parties, respondents had the burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). To meet that burden respondents submitted documentary evidence which indicates that petitioner’s promotion took effect, and hence his probationary period commenced, on October 26, 1988. Applying this date, petitioner’s April 11, 1989 demotion from Sergeant to Patrolman First Grade occurred during the probationary period. If this action was taken in good faith *(see, Matter of York v McGuire,*63 NY2d 760, 761) and accomplished in conformity with applicable civil service rules, then notice of charges and a hearing were unnecessary. Petitioner’s responding contention, that he was permanently appointed to the position of Sergeant on July 18, 1988, is buttressed by the following: an affidavit from the former Mayor of respondent Village of Suffern, wherein the latter avers that he appointed petitioner to the permanent position of Sergeant on that date and thus petitioner fulfilled his probationary period on January 18, 1989; respondent Rockland County’s personnel records which reflect June 1, 1988 as the effective date of the appointment; and the uncontroverted fact that petitioner performed the duties and was paid the salary of Sergeant since June 1988. As a material question of fact exists, summary judgment *616was inappropriately granted (CPLR 3212 [b]; *see, Computer Strategies v Commodore Business Machs.,*105 AD2d 167, 175).

Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and motions denied. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur. *[See,*— AD2d — (Mar. 5,1991).]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MARCO JORDAN DUENAS-GARCIA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-50346 

D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00977-JLS-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Marco Jordan Duenas-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of 

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Duenas-Garcia contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-50346 

to address his mitigating circumstances, failing to explain the sentence adequately, 

and relying on the need to punish the underlying violation conduct. We review for 

plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court 

considered Duenas-Garcia’s arguments and adequately explained its reasons for 

imposing a within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 

992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 

516 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court need not specifically address each of the 

defendant’s arguments to show that it has considered them). Duenas-Garcia has 

not shown that, had the court said more, there is a “reasonable probability” he 

would have received a different sentence. See United States v. Christensen, 732 

F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th Cir. 2013). Finally, the record reflects that the court 

considered only permissible sentencing factors and imposed the sentence to 

sanction Duenas-Garcia’s breach of the court’s trust. See United States v. Simtob, 

485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

Duenas-Garcia also alleges that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

In light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, the 

district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the 18-month sentence. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

AFFIRMED.