alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 14 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PAUL L. GOSELAND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JAY SHELTON; PHILL KLINE, Attorney General of Kansas,

Respondents - Appellees. No. 02-3382 D.C. No. 00-CV-3105-DES (D. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner Paul L. Goseland, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the federal district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.-2-

§ 2254 habeas petition. Having concluded that Goseland failed to file his § 2254 habeas petition within the one-year grace period recognized for pre-AEDPA convictions, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), we deny his request for a COA and dismiss the appeal.Goseland was convicted of possession of cocaine in 1992. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction on July 2, 1993, and the Kansas Supreme Court denied review on September 28, 1993. He filed a request for post-conviction relief in state court on April 24, 1997, which was denied on December 19, 1997. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief on January 21, 2000, and the Kansas Supreme Court denied review on March 21, 2000. Goseland filed his federal habeas petition on March 31, 2000. The federal district court dismissed the petition as time-barred, concluding the filing of his request for state post-conviction relief on the last day of the one-year grace period (April 24, 1997) tolled the running of the limitations period, but left only one day for Goseland to file his § 2254 habeas petition. Because six days elapsed before Goseland delivered his habeas petition to the prison authorities for mailing, and Goseland makes no showing to support equitable tolling, his petition is barred as untimely filed. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and Goseland’s filings with this court. We agree with the district court that the § 2254 habeas petition filed in federal district court was time barred. We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal for-3-

substantially the same reasons as set forth in the district court’s thorough Memorandum and Order filed August 1, 2001, and its Order filed September 18, 2002. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge
AAM-13-047-E

January 11, 2013

 Exemption No. 10220B

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0170

Mr. Lawrence Ihle

Coastal Helicopters, LLC

P.O. Box 715

Nags Head, NC 27959

Dear Mr. Ihle:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10220, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect, and lists 

the conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Coastal Helicopters, LLC (Coastal) for an extension of Exemption No. 10220, as 

amended. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

allows Coastal, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Coastal.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10220, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 
2

has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the conditions and limitations listed 

below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Coastal and OBX Biplanes are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Coastal part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

The termination date of Exemption No. 10220, as amended, is extended to March 31, 2015,

unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
[LETTERHEAD OF SOMEKH CHAIKIN]

Tel Aviv March 4, 1997

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TO THE
SHAREHOLDERS OF ISPAH HOLDINGS LTD.

We have audited the balance sheets of Ispah Holdings Limited as of December 31,
1996 and 1995, the related statements of income and shareholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the period then ended expressed in New
Israel Shekels. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards, including those prescribed under the Auditors Regulations
(Auditor's Mode of Performance), 1973 and, accordingly we have performed such
auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. For
purposes of these financial statements there is no material difference between
generally accepted Israeli auditing standards and auditing standards generally
accepted in the U.S. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentations. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

The above statements have been prepared on the basis of historical cost as
adjusted for the changes in the general purchasing power of the Israel currency
in accordance with opinions issued by the Institute of Certified Public
Accountants in Israel.

Condensed statements in historical values which formed the basis of the adjusted
statements appear in Note 4 to the financial statements.

The data relating to the net asset value of the Company's investments in an
investee company and to its equity in that Company's operating results, is based
on financial statements audited by other auditors.
<PAGE>

In our opinion, based on our audit and on the report of the abovementioned other
auditors, the above mentioned financial statements present fairly the financial
position of the Company as at December 31, 1996 and 1995, the results of its
operations, the changes in shareholder's equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the period ended December 31, 1996, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in Israel, consistently applied.

Accounting principles generally accepted in Israel differ in certain respects
from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The
application of the latter would have affected the determination of
nominal/historical net profit (loss) and shareholders' equity to the extent
summarized in Note 5 to the financial statements.


/s/ Somekh Chaikin

Somekh Chaikin
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS (ISR)
Exhibit 23(d)**[PRATOR BETT, L.L.C. LETTERHEAD]****CONSENT OF PRATOR BETT, L.L.C.**As oil and gas consultants, we hereby consent to the use of our name and our report dated November1, 2005 in this Form 10-K, incorporated by reference into Peoples Energy Corporation’s previouslyfiled Registration Statement File Nos. 333-84594 and 333-70702 on Form S-3, and 2-82760, 33-6369,033-63193, 333-62070, 333-113204, 333-116192, and 333-17701 on Form S-8.      Prator Bett, L.L.C.
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the

basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on

the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that

Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-10084

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

STEVEN SHAW,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(7:94-CR-013-Y)

October 31, 1995

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Appellant, Steven Shaw, appeals his conviction following trial

for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it. We affirm.

First, Appellant argues that the district court erred by

allowing Luz Luna, a cooperating witness, to testify that he and

Shaw had been involved in a similar drug transaction several months2

bef ore the transaction in question. Luna’s testimony about the

earlier event was uncorroborated. The district court allowed the

e vidence as proof of intent and instructed the jury accordingly.

Appellant contends that, since Luna’s testimony was totally

uncorroborated, its probative value was clearly outweighed by its

prejudice. We need not decide this question because, if it was

error to admit this evidence, the error was harmless by reason of

the overwhelming evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction. The

questio ned evidence did not affect the Appellant’s substantial

rights. U nited States v. Hooker

, 997 F.2d 67, 76 (5th Cir. 1993).

Appellant next argues that the Government’s evidence was

insufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that

his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. U nited States

v. Martinez

, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied

,

113 S.Ct. 1346 (1993). Our careful review of the record fully

convinces us that evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Appellant

was arrested during an arranged transac tion with a cooperating

witness posing as seller of the drugs. Appellant met with the

supposed seller, they discussed the drugs and price, Appellant had

in his possession at arrest over $50,000 in cash and attempted to

flee th e scene. The amount of drugs supposed to have been

exchanged was one kilogram, a guantity more than sufficient to

allow the jury to infer intent to distribute.

Shaw also co mplains that the evidence was insufficient to

rebut his entrapment defense. Again we review to determine whether3

a reasonable jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that

Appellant was predisposed to commit the offense. The testimony of

Luna, DEA Agent Lange and Police Officer Kendall showed beyond any

doubt Shaw’s willing participation in the drug transaction.

AFFIRMED.
#### East Cleveland Post No. 1500, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Appellant, *v.*Board of Tax Appeals et al., Appellees.

(No. 28985

Decided April 15, 1942.)

*555
      *Messrs. Wilkin, Krewson & Ammerman,*for appellant.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, and *Mr. Perry L. Graham,*for appellees, Board' of Tax Appeals and others.

*Mr. Frank T. Gullitan,*prosecuting attorney, for appellee, John A. Zangerle, auditor of Cuyahoga county.

By the Court.

All parties agree that the land and building involved are owned by a corporation not for profit.

Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, provides *556that “lands and improvements thereon shall be taxed by uniform rule” and that “general laws may be passed to exempt * **** institutions used exclusively for charitable purposes * ****.”

Section 5353, General Code, enacted pursuant to that authorization, provides that “property belonging to institutions used exclusively for charitable purposes, shall be exempt from-taxation.”

This court is not unmindful of the high purposes of the organization as set forth in its constitution and that the property of the post is permitted to be used by outside organizations for equally laudable activities.

However, the Board of Tax Appeals was confronted with the foregoing constitutional and statutory restrictions relating to a use *exclusively*for charitable purposes. The record before us for review does not support a use *exclusively*for charitable purposes.

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reasonable and lawful (Section 5611-2, General Code) and is therefore affirmed.

*Decision affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Bettman, J., not participating.
# L_2013226EN.01S00301.xml

| 24.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 226/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 226/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3091 

To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 

to reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2015 

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California (for herself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, 

Mr. FATTAH, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE

of Pennsylvania, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. 

CLARK of Massachusetts, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. COHEN, Mr. 

CONNOLLY, Mr. DELANEY, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. DOGGETT, Ms. 

EDWARDS, Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. HAHN, Mr. 

HASTINGS, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. JOHNSON

of Georgia, Mr. KEATING, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. 

LEE, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. LYNCH, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. NADLER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. POLIS, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. LINDA T. 

SA ́NCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SIRES, Mr. TONKO, Mr. VAN

HOLLEN, and Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 

Act of 1994 to reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program. 

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


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3091 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Missing Alzheimer’s 

3 Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization Act of 

4 2015’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MISSING ALZHEIMER’S 

6 DISEASE PATIENT ALERT PROGRAM. 

7 Section 240001 of the Violent Crime Control and 

8 Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14181) is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as fol11 lows: 

12 ‘‘(a) GRANT.—Subject to the availability of appro13 priations to carry out this section, the Attorney General, 

14 through the Bureau of Justice Assistance and in consulta15 tion with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

16 shall award competitive grants to nonprofit organizations 

17 to assist such organizations in paying for the costs of plan18 ning, designing, establishing, and operating locally based, 

19 proactive programs to protect and locate missing patients 

20 with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.’’; 

21 (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘competitive’’ 

22 after ‘‘to receive a’’; 

23 (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as fol24 lows: 

25 ‘‘(c) PREFERENCE.—In awarding grants under sub26 section (a), the Attorney General shall give preference to 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3091 IH

1 national nonprofit organizations that have experience 

2 working with patients, and families of patients, with Alz3 heimer’s disease and related dementias.’’; and 

4 (4) by amending subsection (d) to read as fol5 lows: 

6 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

7 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

8 $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2016 through 

9 2020.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2022478EN.01001501.xml

| 16.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 478/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 478/15

---

Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2431, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2429 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

(2022/C 478/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, entities and bodies that appear in Annexes II and III to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2431 (2), and in Annexes XV and XVI to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2429 (4) concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons, entities and bodies should be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 and Regulation (EU) No 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The grounds for designations of those persons, entities and bodies appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 35 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned lists should be reconsidered, before 28 February 2023, to the following address:

| 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

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council's periodic review, in accordance with Article 36(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 and Article 47(4) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1509.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p.79.

(2)  OJ L 318 I, 12.12.2022, p. 25.

(3)  OJ L 224, 31.8.2017, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 318 I, 12.12.2022, p. 13.

---
# C_2022130EN.01000201.xml

| 23.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/2

---

Communication of the European Parliament concerning the European Citizen’s Prize

CIVI EUROPAEO PRAEMIUM

(2022/C 130/02)

The Chancellery of the European Citizen’s Prize held its annual meeting on 7 July 2021 with Mrs Dita Charanzová, Vice-President of the European Parliament and Chancellor of the European Citizen’s Prize, in the chair.

At that meeting the following list of prize winners for 2021 was drawn up.

The prizes will be awarded at public award ceremonies in the Member States where laureates are based, organised by the Liaison Offices of the European Parliament. The laureates will also attend a central award ceremony at the European Parliament in Brussels in November 2021.

CIVI EUROPAEO PRAEMIUM

Laureates/Winners

Austria: eljub European Youth Encounters

Belgium: Paars

Bulgaria: TheMayor.EU - The European Portal for Cities and Citizens

Croatia: With One Dream United

Cyprus: Documentary films: ‘Our Wall’ and ‘My Homeland

Czech Republic: Masaryk University Volunteer Centre MUNI HELPS

Denmark: European Debate Initiative

Estonia: Youth English Club

Finland: Crises Helpline

France: Franco-German citizens’ dialogue on strengthening cross-border cooperation

Germany: International Youth Theatre Festival ‘Mad Mix

Greece: ELEPAP - Hellenic Society for the Protection & Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities

Hungary: Emergency Exit operation – international educational cooperation

Ireland: Too Into You Campaign

Italy: FROLLA micro biscuit factory

Latvia: Activity to support residents of Belarus – #FreeBelarus

Latvia: Liene Dambiņa

Lithuania: Mano Guru

Luxembourg: RespectEachOther

Malta: Monument of Mercy

Netherlands: Phoenix Project

Poland: Defending the dignity and independence of judges fighting for judicial independence in Poland

Portugal: From the people, to the people

Romania: Geofolk

Slovenia: For solidarity and pan-European health progress for cancer patients

Slovakia: Zmudri Civics stream

Spain: Villa de Moya volunteers for welcoming and integrating irregular migrants

Sweden: The Navet (‘Hub’) Association in Bergsjön and its Collaborative Creation Project

---