alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dusevich and wife, Appellants, vs. Wisconsin Power & Light Company, Respondent.

*January 10*

February *5, 1952.*

*642For the appellants there were briefs by *Blum & Blum*of Monroe, and oral argument by *Anna 0. Blum.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Schubring, Ryan, Petersen & Sutherland*of Madison, and oral argument by *Arnold R. Petersen.*

Gehl, J.

The owners complain of the court’s rejection of their offer to prove “approximately how much they would make on a season in selling at a roadside stand” from which they had previously sold melons raised upon about an acre of their farm land. The rule that “loss of .profits are held not recoverable or provable in condemnation of an owner’s interest,” *Fiorini v. Kenosha,*208 Wis. 496, 498, 243 N. W. 761, seems to be particularly applicable, here where it appears that the location of the stand was not disturbed by the construction and where its operation was affected only by the fact that an elm tree, which had previously shaded the stand, was removed in the construction of the power line. There is nothing to prevent the owners from continuing to operate the stand at precisely the same location at which it had stood before the construction. .There was no error in the court’s ruling.

It is contended that the jury’s award of compensation is inadequate. Testimony as to the loss sustained by the taking varied from a low of $500 to a high of $6,500. The issue of damages was peculiarly for the jury. Having heard the testimony, observed the witnesses, and viewed the premises, we cannot say that we are in better position than they to determine the loss. *Krier v. Milwaukee Northern R. Co.*139 Wis. 207, 120 N. W. 847. *In re Opening of Oklahoma Avenue,*179 Wis. 136, 190 N. W. 1001. We find nothing in the record which, might have exerted an improper influ-; encé upon the. jury.' ' ,

It is contended that the .judgment should be reversed because of the claimed “impatience of the trial judge” and *643disparaging remarks made by him. We have examined the entire record to determine whether anything which the judge said upon the trial might be construed as having had an improper influence upon the jury. We have found nothing said by him which might have affected the jury prejudicially to the owners. The judgment cannot be reversed upon that ground. *Vaningan v. Mueller,*208 Wis. 527, 243 N. W. 419.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Currie, J., took no part.
# L_2012326EN.01001601.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 326/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 326/16

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 20 November 2012

appointing a Spanish member of the Committee of the Regions

(2012/717/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Esperanza AGUIRRE GIL DE BIEDMA, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Esperanza AGUIRRE GIL DE BIEDMA,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Mr Ignacio GONZÁLEZ GONZÁLEZ, Presidente de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Ignacio GONZÁLEZ GONZÁLEZ, Presidente de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 20 November 2012.

For the Council

The President

A. D. MAVROYIANNIS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF: M.C., A MINOR, 

M.C., 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 67700 

FILED 

JAN 1 42016 

LI .EMAN 

BY 

E COU '11 

.7 r no+ 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from an order certifying a child for criminal 

proceedings as an adult. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court 

Division, Clark County; William 0. Voy, Judge. 

M.C. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in 

certifying her because it concluded that the nature and seriousness of the 

charged offenses alone warranted certification without considering her 

individual characteristics and experiences. She argues that the juvenile 

court must take into account a juvenile's individual characteristics and 

experiences when analyzing the nature and seriousness of charged 

offenses and cites to numerous United States Supreme Court cases to 

support her argument. 

We conclude that the juvenile court properly considered the 

nature and seriousness of the charged offenses. The cases cited by M.C. do 

not address certification proceedings but primarily focus on considerations 

when a juvenile is already in the adult criminal system. There currently 

is no requirement that a juvenile's individual characteristics and 

experiences be taken into account when considering the nature and 

seriousness of the crime. See In the Matter of Seven Minors, 99 Nev. 427, 

664 P.2d 947 (1983), disapproved of on other grounds by Matter of William 

(th 194M ce 
Sailta Pickering 

S., 122 Nev. 432, 132 P.3d 1015 (2006). But even if there were such a 

requirement, it appears that the juvenile court took M.C.'s individual 

characteristics and experiences into account. While the juvenile court 

made a finding that the nature of the offenses in this matter was so 

heinous and egregious to warrant certification alone, it noted M.C.'s lack 

of previously admitted and adjudicated offenses, her age, and her life 

story, which was extensively put on the record during briefing and oral 

argument of the matter. In its order granting certification, the juvenile 

court concluded that M.C.'s "subjective factors do not outweigh the nature 

and seriousness of the offenses." See id at 435, 664 P.2d at 952-53. 

Therefore, it appears that the juvenile court did consider M.C.'s individual 

characteristics and experiences and determined that certification was 

warranted. Accordingly, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its 

discretion, see In the Matter of Eric A.L., 123 Nev. 26, 33, 153 P.3d 32, 36 

(2007), and we 

ORDER the judgment of the juvenile court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

Pide&t.tuf_, J. 

cc: Hon. William 0. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ero 

2 

c5c. ? •
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: April 26, 2011 Meeting with Industries asso ciated with Forest Products and EPA on the 2011 NHSM Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

On April 26, 2011, EPA met with members of forest product industries to discuss their issues and concerns with the final rule entitled, “Ide ntification of Non-Hazar dous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste,” which was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). This is referred to as the 2011 NHSM Final Rule.

During that meeting, the industry members expresse d concerns with the rule’s impact on forest industry products (including biomass). They focused on issues with contaminants legitimacy criterion. There were specific materials they we re concerned with: resinated trim, wastewater Treatment Residuals, recycled paper residuals /OCC rejects, urban w ood, tire-derived fuel, railway ties (creosote), tall oil, turp entine, and other biomass residuals.

EPA asked clarifying questions rega rding the information discussed.

Attachment: See the meeting agenda for further details.

Expected Meeting Attendees: Industries: AFPA (Tim Hunt and Amy Schaeffer) Boise Cascade Georgia Pacific Smurfit International Paper Composite Panel Association Treated Wood CouncilInvited EPA attendees: Chair: Suzanne Rudzinski Tracy Atagi Jim Berlow Alan Carpien Sandra Connors George Faison Mike Galbraith Mimi Guernica John Michaud Mary Beth Sheridan Matt Straus Tab Tesnau Marc Thomas
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ) No. ACM S32748

Appellee )

)

v. )

) ORDER

Jahkob L. THOMAS )

Airman Basic (E-1) )

U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Panel 3

On 23 February 2024, Appellant submitted a Motion to Withdraw from Appellant Review and Motion to Attach. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach 

a DD Form 2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and Special Courts-Martial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals, signed 

by Appellant and Appellant’s counsel on 22 February 2024 and 23 February

2024, respectively.

The Government did not submit any opposition.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 28th day of February, 2024,

ORDERED:

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Motion to Attach are GRANTED. Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records 

Branch (JAJM) for further processing in accordance with Rules for CourtsMartial 1115(f)(3) and 1201, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024

ed.). 

FOR THE COURT

FLEMING E. KEEFE, Capt, USAF

Deputy Clerk of the Court
# L_2011319EN.01004101.xml

| 2.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 319/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 319/41

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1250/2011

of 29 November 2011

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Πατάτα Νάξου (Patata Naxou) (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Πατάτα Νάξου’ (Patata Naxou) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Πατάτα Νάξου’ (Patata Naxou) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 November 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 91, 23.3.2011, p. 15.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

GREECE

Πατάτα Νάξου (Patata Naxou) (PGI)

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 16, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00913

- CR

Tam

- Monta Lamont Eugene HASTINGS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Te xas, Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR8107 Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Because t he trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appea l”, we ordered appellant to file an amended trial court certification showing appellant has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). We warned that if appellant did not do so, we would dismiss the appeal; we further suspended all appellate deadlines pending further court order.

On January 11, 2019, appellant filed a “Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Response to the Court’s December 14, 2018 Show Cause Order.” Counsel states he needs to

r eview the September 28, 2018 sentencing hearing before he can make a final determination as to the basis, if any, for an amended certification. We GRANT appellant’s motion. In doing so, we ORDER court reporter Ms. Jessica C. Butts to file the reporter’s record of the September 28, 2018 sentencing hearing no later than January 28, 2019

. Appellant’s response to the December 14, 2018 show cause order is due 10 days from the date the reporter’s record referenced above is

filed.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### OCT 27 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SHANNON YOUNG,

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellant,
v. DORA GREEN; FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE CREDIT UNION, Defendants-CounterClaimants-Appellees. No. 03-2058 (D.C. No. CIV-02-941 MV/LFG)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY , HARTZ , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Appellant Shannon Young, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s order that dismissed his complaint with pre judice for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To the extent we can decipher his briefs on appeal, he argues that the dismissal is a violationof due process, and he should have been allowed discovery to produce evidence in support of his claims so that they could be tried to a jury. We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo , accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and viewin g them in the light most favorable to appellant. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind , 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). Dismissal is not prop er “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id. (quotation omitted). The district court dismissed appellant’s complaint with prejudice because all of appellant’s claims were based on the same sp ecious premise that the car loan he obtained from appellee Fraternal Order of P olice Credit Union was not valid because it was not paid to him in gold or sil ver. We have carefully reviewed the parties’ materials and the record on appeal. We resolve that this appeal is frivolous, and we affirm for substantiall y the same reasons thoroughly discussed by the district court in its January 27, 2003 order.-3-

We construe appellant’s paper styled “Formal Notice to the Court” as a motion for sanctions, and deny it. Appellant’s pap ers styled “Motion to Deny Entry of Appearance and Standing” and “Motion for L eave of Court” are also denied. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Th e mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
Slip Op. 20–172

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

__________________________________________ 

: 

WILMAR TRADING PTE LTD., : 

PT WILMAR BIOENERGI INDONESIA, and : 

WILMAR OLEO NORTH AMERICA LLC, : 

: 

Plaintiffs, : 

: 

and : 

: 

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF : Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge 

INDONESIA and P.T. MUSIM MAS, : 

: Consol. Court No. 18-00006 

Consolidated Plaintiffs, : 

: 

v. : 

: 

UNITED STATES, : 

: 

Defendant, : 

: 

and : 

: 

NATIONAL BIODIESEL BOARD FAIR : 

TRADE COALITION, : 

: 

Defendant-Intervenor. : 

__________________________________________: 

JUDGMENT 

Before the court is the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce” or the 

“Department”) remand redetermination (“Remand Results”), ECF No. 77, issued pursuant to the 

court’s order in Wilmar Trading PTE Ltd. v. United States, 44 CIT __, Slip Op. 20-115 (Aug. 11, 

2020). 

In Wilmar, the court directed Commerce to recalculate its subsidy determination of goods 

provided for less than adequate remuneration for one of the Indonesian tax programs under 
Consol. Court No. 18-00006 Page 2

investigation: 

Commerce shall make a new subsidy determination as to the 1994 Export Tariff 

that is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law; or, in the 

alternative, recalculate its ad valorem subsidy rate for goods provided for less than 

adequate remuneration, excluding any claimed effects of the 1994 Export Tariff. 

Wilmar, 44 CIT at __, Slip. Op. 20-115 at 40. 

In response, Commerce issued the Remand Results, stating that 

it did not undertake any separate or additional subsidy rate calculations pursuant to 

the 1994 export tariff for either Musim Mas or Wilmar. Upon remand, Commerce 

now also determines that the entire benefit from the provision of cheap [cheap crude 

palm oil] is attributable to the 2015 export levy. Therefore, Commerce finds that 

no adjustment to the ad valorem rate is necessary in order to comply with the 

Court’s order. 

Remand Results at 3. In other words, the Department found that it did not need to make an 

adjustment to the ad valorem rate to comply with the court’s order in Wilmar, because its subsidy 

calculation for goods provided for less than adequate remuneration was based solely on the 2015 

export levy. 

The court finds that Commerce has complied with its instruction in Wilmar because the 

Department determined that its ad valorem rate for crude palm oil provided for less than adequate 

remuneration excluded any claimed effects of the 1994 export tariff. 

No party contests the Remand Results. See Def.’s Request to Sustain Remand Results, ECF 

No. 80. 

There being no further dispute in this matter, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the Remand Results are sustained. 

 /s/ Richard K. Eaton 

 Richard K. Eaton, Judge 

Dated: December 1, 2020 

New York, New York
## CLSALVADO R UhtOO:>

**cnECE~O$** T()OOS 

## -====:::--.;:::o:::-----; ::: AUTORIDAD DEAVIAeiON CIVIL REPUBLICA DE EL SALVADOR) EL SALVADOR 

### C.A. 

## I

- - -+- - -- - --···-- - 1 llopango, May 27th , 2015 . Mr. Paul Gretch. Director Office of International Aviation U . S. Department of Transportation 40007th Street, S.W. Room 6402 Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Gretch: AAC -GL-018-2015-DE

' The El Sa lvador Civil Aviation Authority hereby confirms , that it will grant , on the basis of reciprocity, to any air carrier designated by the United ,States of America, the right to conduct fifth and seventh freedom traffic rights on schedules or non-sc7edules basis, which are in conformity to the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government I of El Salvador, signed on May 8th 1997. ' Sincerely yours.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 40-9075-LR; ASLBP No. 25-987-01-LR-BD01]

                    Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,                     *see, e.g.,*                     10 CFR §§ 2.104, 2.105, 2.300, 2.309, 2.313, 2.318, 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to preside over the following proceeding:                

POWERTECH (USA) INC.

(Dewey Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facility)

Powertech (USA) Inc. requests a renewed license that, if granted, would authorize it to operate the Dewey-Burdock Uranium In-Situ Recovery Facility for 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license. The facility has not yet been constructed, but if constructed, it would be located in Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota.

                    In response to a notice filed in the                     **Federal Register**                     announcing the opportunity to request a hearing,                     *see*89 FR 65401 (Aug. 9, 2024), the following petitioners filed a hearing request on October 8, 2024: (1) Susan Henderson; and (2) the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Black Hills Clean Water Alliance, and NDN Collective.                

The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:

Jeremy A. Mercer, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001

Nicholas G. Trikouros, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dr. Gary S. Arnold, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001

                    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.                     *See*10 CFR 2.302.                

Rockville, Maryland

Dated: October 15, 2024.

Edward R. Hawkens,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 2024-24195 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P