alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-1644

___________ James S. Murphy, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Dr. John Doe; Captain John Doe; * Appeal from the United States Dean Minor; Jim Moore; Lt. R.W. * District Court for the Martin; Jim Jones; Larry Barne; * Eastern District of Missouri. Ms. Unknown Rusker; W. Buck; * Jerry Hudson; John Doe; M. * [UNPUBLISHED] Jones; R.S. Shoun; Thereasa * Thornbrug, all individually and * in their official capacities, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 26, 1996 Filed: February 15, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, AND MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Missouri inmate James S. Murphy appeals the district court's 1 adverse orders in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for recusal, dismissing as to some defendants, and granting summary judgment as to the remaining defendants. Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties' briefs, we conclude no error of law or fact appears. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2- A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00325-CV

JUPE FEEDS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

JOSE PINA,

Appellee

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. C201300273

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jupe Feed’s Petition for Permissive Interlocutory Appeal filed on September 28, 

2015 is denied. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 28.3; 43.2(f).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Jupe Feeds, Inc. v. Pina Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 15, 2015

[CV06]
# C_2022145EN.01000601.xml

| 1.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/6

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 145/05)

Decision granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2022) 1789 | 25 March 2022 | 4-Nonylphenol, branched and linear, ethoxylated (4-NPnEO)
  EC No: -, CAS No:- | Cytiva Sweden AB, Björkgatan 30, BA1-1, 75 184 Uppsala, Sweden | REACH/22/9/0 | Industrial use of emulsifiers containing 4-NPnEO for the manufacture of chromatography resins used by the biopharmaceutical industry, food and beverage sector and academia | 4 January 2033 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2022) 1789

25 March 2022

4-Nonylphenol, branched and linear, ethoxylated (4-NPnEO)

EC No: -, CAS No:-

Cytiva Sweden AB, Björkgatan 30, BA1-1, 75 184 Uppsala, Sweden

REACH/22/9/0

Industrial use of emulsifiers containing 4-NPnEO for the manufacture of chromatography resins used by the biopharmaceutical industry, food and beverage sector and academia

4 January 2033

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu)

---
Glossary 

Home Forecasts & Analysis > Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030

Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030 

 Report #:DOE/EIA-0383(2006) 

 Release date full report: February 2006 

 Next release date full report: February 2007 

The Annual Energy Outlook 2006 presents a forecast and analysis of US energy supply, 

demand, and prices through 2030. The projections are based on results from the Energy 

Information Administration's National Energy Modeling System. The AEO2006 includes the 

reference case, additional cases examining energy markets, and complete documentation. 

 

Forecast Data Tables 

 Reference Case Tables (links to individual excel and PDF files)

High Macroeconomic Growth Case Tables (links to individual excel files)

Low Macroeconomic Growth Case Tables (links to individual excel files)

 High Price Case Tables (links to individual excel files)

 Low Price Case Tables (links to individual excel files)

Regional and other detailed tables (Supplemental)

Contents (complete Report) 

Overview 

, 

 Market Drivers 

, 

 Energy Demand Projections , 

 Electricity Forecast

, 

 Oil and Natural Gas Projections 

, 

 Coal Forecast

, 

 Projected Emissions , 

 Issues in Focus , 

 Legislation and Regulations , 

 Forecast Comparisons , 

 List of Acronyms 

 Notes and Sources 

 Preface , 

 Appendixes

 Click on image to 

download printer-friendly 

version

Related Links 

 EIA Energy Outlook

 Modeling Conference

 Administrator's Presentation

 Press Release

 Graphic Data - AEO2006

 Assumptions to the

 AEO2006

 Past AEO editions

 Contact report authors

 Forecast contacts 

 NEMS Documentation 

 Forecast Evaluation

(AEO2005) 

Privacy/Security | Accessibility | Copyright & Reuse • Contact Us | Feedback | Careers | About EIA

Fedstats | USA.gov | Department of Energy

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2... Page 1 of 1

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/index.html 3/15/2010
#### PURVIS v. STATE.

No. 19267.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1938.

C. Land, of Memphis, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for being a delinquent child and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state juvenile training school at Gatesville, Tex., for six months.

The complaint and information charged appellant with having stolen one chicken from J. A. Merrick. It appears from the testimony of the state that appellant sold Mr. Merrick’s chicken to a produce company. Appellant was twelve years of age at the time of the alleged theft.

Over appellant’s timely and proper objection, the court instructed the jury as follows: “The recent possession of stolen property is a presumption of guilt.” This charge was equivalent to an instruction to the jury to find appellant guilty. While he was shown to be in possession of the chicken in question, such possession did not raise a legal presumption of his guilt. It was only a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining whether he was guilty. It follows that the exception to the charge was well taken. Lewis v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 79, 276 S.W. 1102.

It has been observed that appellant was twelve years of age at the time of the alleged theft. We find in the record no proof that he had discretion sufficient to understand the' nature and illegality of the act constituting the offense. The failure to make such proof also necessitates a reversal of the judgment. Miller v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 495, 200 S.W. 389. Article 30, P.C., reads as follows:

> “No person shall be convicted of any offense committed before he was nine years old except perjury, and for that only when it shall appear by proof that he had sufficient discretion to understand the nature and obligation of an oath; nor of any other .offense committed between the age of nine and thirteen, unless it shall appear by proof that he had discretion sufficient to understand the nature and illegality of the act constituting the offense.”

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals hás been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 278 

Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for the TIGER 

discretionary grant program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2015 

Mr. LARSEN of Washington (for himself and Ms. DELBENE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, 

and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for 

the TIGER discretionary grant program, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transportation Invest5 ment Generating Economic Recovery for Cities Under6 funded Because of Size Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘TIGER 

7 CUBS Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 278 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR TIGER 

2 GRANTS. 

3 The following sums are appropriated, out of any 

4 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fis5 cal year 2015: 

6 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

7 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

8 NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

9 For an additional amount for ‘‘National Infrastruc10 ture Investments’’ in accordance with the provisions under 

11 this heading in title I of division K of Public Law 113– 

12 235, $500,000,000: Provided, That the amount under this 

13 heading shall remain available until September 30, 2017: 

14 Provided further, That not less than $100,000,000 of the 

15 funds provided under this heading shall be for projects lo16 cated in cities with populations between 10,000 and 

17 50,000: Provided further, That for a project described in 

18 the preceding proviso, the minimum grant amount shall 

19 be $2,000,000, and the Secretary of Transportation may 

20 provide a Federal share of costs in excess of 80 percent: 

21 Provided further, That the amount under this heading is 

22 designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 

23 pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget 

24 and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, except that 

25 such amount shall be available only if the President subseVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:22 Jan 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H278.IH H278

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 278 IH

1 quently so designates such amount and transmits such 

2 designation to the Congress. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022134EN.01003801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 25.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/38 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10583 – CPP INVESTMENTS / VOTORANTIM / JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 134/13)

1.

On 17 March 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022134EN.01003801-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CPP Investments (Canada), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Votorantim S.A. (‘Votorantim’, Brazil), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | the Joint Venture (‘JV’, Brazil). |

CPP Investments and Votorantim will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the newly-created JV.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CPP Investments is an investment management organisation that invests the funds of the Canada Pension Plan Fund, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Votorantim is active in a variety of business segments, including cement and concrete, mining and metallurgy, concentrated orange juice, chemical specialty markets, electric power generation and financial sector. |

3.

The JV will invest in and/or develop (a) renewable greenfield projects and (b) new renewable energy opportunities, and will be active exclusively in Brazil.

4.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022134EN.01003801-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

5.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10583 – CPP INVESTMENTS / VOTORANTIM / JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022134EN.01003801-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022134EN.01003801-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 8, 2009 

s0401 

Order 

 

April 8, 2009 

136514 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136514 

 COA: 280262 

Leelanau CC: 06-001498-FC 

FAYE ROBYN O’NON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 4, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

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

consideration, as on leave granted, of the issues: (1) whether the redacted transcript of 

the prior testimony of Matthew O’Non at his own trial, which was admitted in this case, 

was “testimonial” under Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36; 124 S Ct 1354; 158 L Ed 

2d 177 (2004); (2) whether any statements in that transcript were hearsay under MRE 

801(c) because they were offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted and therefore 

were barred by Crawford; and (3) whether all statements in that transcript that were 

offered to prove the falsity of the matters asserted necessarily were not hearsay under 

MRE 801(c) and thus were not barred by Crawford. In all other respects, leave to appeal 

is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should 

be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

ROBERT JOHN PRETTI, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 795 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. 

Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RICHARD LEONARD ARLINGTON, 

a.k.a. Victor Petrovch Astashoff, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-50327

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00391-PSG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2016**

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Richard Leonard Arlington appeals from the district court’s order modifying 

the terms of his supervised to require him to participate in a GPS monitoring 

program for a period not to exceed twelve months. We have jurisdiction under 28 

 

 

*

 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

MAY 31 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 15-50327 

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Arlington first contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose 

the condition because probation petitioned to add it before he was released. We 

disagree. The district did not impose the condition until after Arlington’s release. 

In any event, a district court may modify the conditions of supervised release “at 

any time prior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2).

Arlington next contends that the district court failed to explain the condition

adequately. We review for plain error, United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 

F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court’s reasons for 

imposing the condition are apparent from the record. See United States v. 

Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Finally, Arlington contends that the district court erred by imposing the 

condition because it is not reasonably related to the goals of supervised release and 

is a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. The district court

did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 557 (9th 

Cir. 2006). The condition involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is 

reasonably necessary to protect the public and is reasonably related to facilitating
 3 15-50327 

Arlington’s compliance with the other conditions of his supervised release. See 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); Weber, 451 F.3d at 557-58.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officers of the registrant certify that the Quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the Quarterly period ending June 30, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)) and that information contained in this report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the registrant.


Date:    August 13, 2003                 /S/ Philip S. Tabbiner
                                         Philip S. Tabbiner
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:    August 13, 2003                 /S/ William L. Ginna, Jr.
                                         William L. Ginna, Jr.
                                         Executive Vice President and
                                         Chief Financial Officer


Date:    August 13, 2003                 /S/ Frederick D. Sancilio
                                         Frederick D. Sancilio
                                         Executive Chairman
Exhibit
32.2








Chief
Financial Officer’s Certification required under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of TIB Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Stephen J. Gilhooly, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of the Company.








Date:           May
      11, 2009
            
            /s/
      Stephen J. GilhoolyStephen
      J. Gilhooly
              Executive
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer











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 TIB Financial Corp. and will be retained by
TIB Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

37.5 38.0 38.5 39.0 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/25 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL