alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50789 Conference Calendar

JOHN LACEY MALONE, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus SLADE, Warden, Warden of F.C.I. La Tuna & F.P.C. La Tuna, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-97-CV-279

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John Lacey Malone, Jr., federal prisoner # 52209-080, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prison’s refusal to consider him eligible for a reduction to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). He argues that the BOP’s policy of not considering eligible prisoners convicted of drug trafficking offenses for which the sentences were enhanced under the Sentencing Guidelines for possession of a firearm is an impermissible interpretation ofNo. 97-50789 -2- § 3621(e)(2)(B)’s “nonviolent offense.” His argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in Venegas v. Henman , 126 F.3d 760, 763-65 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1679 (1998).
AFFIRMED.
# C_2023336EN.01000601.xml

| 22.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/6

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.108355

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 336/05)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 4.8.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.108355 |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Subsidies to the interest of bank loans granted to entities operating in the field of cereals trading or grain purchase, or agricultural plant seed trading, referred to in the provisions on seed production, or buying or freezing soft fruit |
| Legal basis | § 13 zy of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 27 January 2015 on the detailed scope and methods of implementing certain tasks of the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Interest subsidy |
| Budget | Overall budget: 780 000 000 PLN
  Annual budget: 390 000 000 PLN |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Wholesale of grain, unmanufactured tobacco, seeds and animal feeds, Wholesale of fruit and vegetables |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Agencja Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa |
| ul. Poleczki 33, 02-822 Warszawa |

Date of adoption of the decision

4.8.2023

Aid number

SA.108355

Member State

Poland

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Subsidies to the interest of bank loans granted to entities operating in the field of cereals trading or grain purchase, or agricultural plant seed trading, referred to in the provisions on seed production, or buying or freezing soft fruit

Legal basis

§ 13 zy of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 27 January 2015 on the detailed scope and methods of implementing certain tasks of the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Interest subsidy

Budget

Overall budget: 780 000 000 PLN

Annual budget: 390 000 000 PLN

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Wholesale of grain, unmanufactured tobacco, seeds and animal feeds, Wholesale of fruit and vegetables

Name and address of the granting authority

Agencja Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa

ul. Poleczki 33, 02-822 Warszawa

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA

---
Exhibit (10)(j)(i)

Amendment No. 1

to

Schedule A to Exhibit (10)(j)

March 1, 2002



The following table sets forth the name of each current director of
Potlatch Corporation who has executed the Indemnification Agreement filed as Exhibit (10)(j):



|Name of Director            |  | Date Agreement Executed
|--------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                           
|Boh A. Dickey               |  | August 7, 2000         
|Jerome C. Knoll             |  | December 31, 2001      
|Lawrence S. Peiros          |  | February 1, 2003       
|Gregory L. Quesnel          |  | September 15, 2000     
|Michael T. Riordan          |  | January 1, 2003        
|Toni Rembe                  |  | December 11, 1986      
|Judith M. Runstad           |  | March 9, 1999          
|L. Pendleton Siegel         |  | November 1, 1997       
|Frederick T. Weyerhaeuser   |  | December 11, 1986      
|Dr. William T. Weyerhaeuser |  | February 22, 1990
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GEORGE BEARDEN, 

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent

______________________

2024-1491

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-844E-21-0215-I-2.

______________________

O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to file the required 

Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is 

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the 

same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

Case: 24-1491 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 03/22/2024
2 BEARDEN V. OPM

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

March 22, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 22, 2024

Case: 24-1491 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 03/22/2024
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of SCPIE Holdings Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                                          
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Dated: May 9, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert B. Tschudy                    
|                   |  |  |  | Robert B. Tschudy Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-287-CV

IN THE MATTER OF J.W.	

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

	FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	In September 2002, Appellant J.W. was adjudicated delinquent on three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  The trial court sentenced him to ten years’ confinement in the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), subject to a possible transfer to the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (IDTDCJ).  In August 2005, pursuant to TYC’s request, the trial court conducted a transfer hearing and transferred Appellant from TYC to IDTDCJ.  Appellant appeals from the transfer order.

	In one point, Appellant contends that the trial court’s admission of exhibits containing TYC records and a summary report thereof violated his rights to confrontation and due process.  Despite the fact that Appellant established at trial that the witness through whom the State’s exhibits were introduced had no personal knowledge of the information contained therein, and despite Appellant’s comment in his brief on appeal that the witness’s testimony was hearsay, Appellant did not object at trial to the witness’s testimony.  Although Appellant does not explain on appeal which specific items of evidence in the exhibits were both testimonial and harmful, our review of the unchallenged testimony shows that while at TYC, Appellant

•	maintained the next to the lowest phase—Phase One—in correctional therapy, which indicated to TYC personnel that he was neither trying nor motivated to complete the resocialization program;

•	had approximately 369 documented incidents of misconduct or referrals from the time he arrived at TYC until the day of the hearing, ranging from failing to follow instructions to assaulting staff;

•	was confined in the security unit 75 times;

•	was discharged unsuccessfully from the sex offender program; and

•	was warned on several occasions that he could be transferred to IDTDCJ if he continued to engage in noncompliant behavior.

The testimony also indicated that TYC officials recommended that Appellant be transferred to IDTDCJ for the remainder of his sentence.  This evidence supports the trial court’s determination to transfer Appellant to IDTDCJ.2 	To preserve error in the admission of evidence, a party must make a proper objection and get a ruling on that objection and must then object each time the inadmissible evidence is offered or obtain a running objection.3  Error in the admission of evidence is cured when the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection.4  Because Appellant did not object to the testimony, he has failed to preserve error in the admission of the exhibits.  Consequently, we overrule Appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s order.

									PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  April 20, 2006
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of First Merchants Corporation on Form S-8 (File Number 333-50484) of our report dated June 6, 2019, on our audits of the financial statements of First Merchants Corporation Retirement Income and Savings Plan for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 11-K.





/s/ BKD, LLP





Indianapolis, Indiana


June 6, 2019
#### CORNELL v. CRAMER.

No. 3004.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 17, 1934.

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1934.

L. J. Wardlaw, of Port Worth, and D. B. Hardeman and R. G. Hughes, both of San Angelo, for appellant.

Shelby S. Cox and Wm. M. Cramer, both of Dallas, for appellee.

PELPHREY, Chief Justice.

This suit was brought by appellee for himself and as trustee for Mrs. Dorothy Schneider against Jos. W. Bailey, Jr., to require Bailey to deliver to him a certain mineral deed, which was held by Bailey under an escrow agreement between appellant and appel-lee. In an amended petition appellee made appellant a party defendant, alleging that he was asserting some kind of claim to the mineral deed. Appellant thereupon filed his plea of privilege to be sued in Tom Green county, the county of his residence, and, upon said plea being overruled, duly perfected an appeal to the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals. Said appeal was transferred by the Supreme Court to this court and is docketed here as James Cornell v. W. M. Cramer, 72 S.W.(2d) 394. After the trial court had overruled the plea of privilege, he proceeded to try the cause on the merits, and rendered judgment that Cramer recover title and possession of the mineral deed from Bailey, and decreed that appellant 'had no interest in the deed and no right to the possession thereof and that it be decreed to be the sole property of appellee. From that judgment Cornell alone has appealed.

Opinion.

On this day we have decided that the trial court erred in overruling Cornell’s plea of privilege and have reversed 72 S.W.(2d) 394, and ordered the venue of the suit, as to Cornell, transferred to Tom Green county.

The trial court, having improperly overruled the plea of privilege, was without jurisdiction to try the cause on its merits; consequently the present judgment, in so far as Cornell is concerned, must'be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 19, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 19, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0008. ARTHUR H. CLARKE, JR. et al. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 14V0116
1

Filed 9/23/24 P. v. Tomanogi CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FISAGA TOMANOGI, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E083521

(Super.Ct.No. FSB23000947)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Alexander R. 

Martinez, Judge. Dismissed.

Matthew Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

On September 18, 2023, defendant and appellant Fisaga Tomanogi, Jr., pled no 

contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, 

subd. (a)(4), count 2.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court ordered defendant placed 

on 24 months of formal probation.1 The court held the restitution hearing on February 

23, 2024. On March 8, 2024, the court ordered defendant to pay $4,120 in victim 

restitution.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,2setting forth a statement of facts, a 

statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court

erred in calculating lost wages and moving expenses at the restitution hearing.

We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We 

noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, defendant has 

not filed one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review 

the record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss 

the appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)

1 A term of defendant’s plea provided that if defendant had no violation of his 

probation for nine months, the court would reduce the offense from a felony to a 

misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b).

2

 In People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), the California 

Supreme Court held that Wende and Anders procedures do not apply to appeals from 

postjudgment proceedings. (Delgadillo, at pp. 224-226.)
3

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

MENETREZ

J.
*

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1528

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Marcus Garcia Bland, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 19, 2002

Filed: July 26, 2002 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Marcus Garcia Bland was charged with possessing with intent to

distribute in excess of 50 grams of a mixture containing cocaine base, in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A), Bland moved to suppress evidence seized

from his residence. The district court*

 denied the motion, Bland pleaded guilty, and

the district court sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised

release.
-2-

On appeal, Bland's counsel filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court improperly denied the

motion to suppress. Bland has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

An appeal of the denied motion to suppress is foreclosed by Bland's

unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Jennings, 12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir.

1994). Also, having independently reviewed the record, we find no nonfrivolous

issues. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the district court

and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2022426EN.01004001.xml

| 9.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 426/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 426/40

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma apply

(2022/C 426/06)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

The legal basis for this processing operation are Decision 2013/184/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2178 (2), and Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2177 (4).

The controller of this processing operation is the Department RELEX.1 in the Directorate-General for External Relations - RELEX of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC), that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1. |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The GSC's Data Protection Officer can be contacted at:

Data Protection Officer

data.protection@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Decision 2013/184/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/2178, and Regulation (EU) No 401/2013, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2177.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 401/2013.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the exercise of the rights of the data subjects such as the right of access, as well as the rights to rectification or to object will be answered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (edps@edps.europa.eu).

---

(1)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75.

(2)  OJ L 286, 8.11.2022, p. 12.

(3)  OJ L 121, 3.5.2013, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 286, 8.11.2022, p. 1.

---
Exhibit(c)
                                
                                
                   Peoples Energy Corporation

     Consider Amendments to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan

                   RESOLVED, That this Board of
          Directors does hereby approve the proposed
          amendments to the Peoples Energy Employee
          Stock Purchase Plan as set forth in the copy
          of the amended Plan presented at this
          meeting; and
                   
                   RESOLVED FURTHER, That the
          Secretary of the Company be, and he hereby
          is, directed to initial a copy of the amended
          Peoples Energy Corporation Employee Stock
          Purchase Plan presented to this Board and
          place it with the important papers of this
          meeting.
## ) ( ) 1 ( h p LF Q p

p **+ −**  **= ∆** 

p Frequency of resistance allele Q Proportion of refuge L Survival of RR in Bt field F Fecundity per capita in Bt field h Heterozygosity 0

-1 >> p >> p Smallest Value Second Order Approximation Single Locus Model High Dose Complete Adult Dispersal

Dominates Rate of Evolution

## ) ( ) 1 ( h p LF Q p

p **+ −**  **= ∆** 

p Frequency of resistance allele Q Proportion of refuge L Survival of RR in Bt field F Fecundity per capita in Bt field h Heterozygosity 

### Larval Movement in Seed Mix Second Order Approximation Single Locus Model High Dose Complete Adult DispersalSS SR RR SS SR RRL1 H1 1 SS SR RR L2 SS H2 SR 1 RRL1 H1 1 SS SR RR L2 SS L1L2 H2 SR 1 RRL1 H1 1 SS SR RR L2 SS L1L2 H1L2 L2 H2 SRL1H2 H1H2 H2 1 RR L1 H1 1L1 H1 1 SS SR RR L2 SS L1L2 H1L2 L2 H2 SRL1H2H1H2 H2 1 RR L1 H1 1L1 H1 1 SS SR RR L2 SS L1L2 H1L2 L2 H2 SRL1H2H1H2 H2 1 RR L1 H1 1L1 H1 1 SS SR RR L2 SSL1L2 H1L2 L2 H2 SRL1H2 H1H2 H2 1 RR L1 H1 1 

## Empirical Case 1L1 H1 1 SS SR RR L2 SSL1L2 H1L2 L2 H2 SRL1H2 H1H2 H2 1 RR L1 H1 1 

## Empirical Case 1L1 H1 1 SS SR RR L2 SSL1L2 H1L2 L2 H2 SRL1H2 H1H2 H2 1 RR L1 H1 1 

## Empirical Case 2L1 H1 1 SS SR RR L2 SSL1L2 H1L2 L2 H2 SRL1H2H1H2 H2 1 RR L1 H1 1 

## Empirical Case 2
Appeal Reinstated and Order filed November 6, 2012.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00739

- CV

____________ KEN S. OGBONNIA D/B/ A FIRST TEXAS ENERGY , Appellant

V. AT&T ADVERTISING, LP , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 988333



### O R D E R
On May 22, 2012, this court abated this appeal so that the corporate appellant, First Texas Energy Corporation, could retain counsel . To date, n o attorney has filed a
notice of a ppearance. On July 26, 2012, this court granted appellant a final extension of
time to file a ppellant = s corrected brief until August 27, 2012

. In its order, the court stated that appellant may proceed pro se in his individual appeal if he h as been unable t o obtain counsel. On September 24, 2012, appellant filed a response to this court’s order stating
that he did not receive the July 26, 2012 order, and did not know it had issued until he called to inquire about his extension request . He then picked up a co py of the order on2

September 19, 2012. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a further motion for

ext ension of time in response to the order . Accordingly, we REINSTATE the appeal and issue the following order:
Unless appellant files a corrected brief with t he clerk of this court on or before November 26, 2012 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No further extensions of time will be granted.

PER CURIAM