alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wayne McCOLLUM, Appellant, v. James E. BUSH, Appellee.

No. 21819.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 6, 1965.

Sam R. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Houston, Tex., Bruce Allen, County Atty., Ellis County, Waxahachie, Tex., Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Paul R. Robertson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Houston, Tex., for appellant.

Charles Alan Wright, Cambridge, Mass., Billy J. Moore, Ennis, Tex., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and RIVES and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Upon careful consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with nearly all of the thorough and able opinion of the district judge. While we think that the opinion of a general medical practitioner as to sanity is admissible, it seems clear to us, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that in adjudicating Bush guilty and sentencing him to life imprisonment without any psychiatric testimony,1 the state denied Bush both a fair trial and the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. The only psychiatric testimony given on behalf of the appellee was that of a clinical psychologist who was required to examine Bush during a 40 minute lunch recess during the trial. It is relevant to note that when the appellee was subjected to a real psychiatric examination following remand by the United States Supreme Court, Bush v. State of Texas, 372 U.S. 586, 83 S.Ct. 922, 9 L.Ed.2d 958, he was kept at the state mental hospital for treatment and observation for 89 days — thus dramatically highlighting the inadequacy of the 40 minute lunch hour period granted to the appellee’s psychologist at the trial.
Exhibit
32.2








KINDER
MORGAN MANAGEMENT, LLC


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906


OF
THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kinder Morgan Management, LLC
(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kinder Morgan Management, LLC and will be retained by Kinder Morgan
Management, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.








Dated:  February
      27, 2009
            
            /s/
      Kimberly A. DangKimberly
      A. Dang
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM July 2021

 

1. Enclosed land area

Fence (382) Initial setting: Any area where animal or human 

movement is managed due to presence of 

sensitive or hazardous areas; and/or for forage 

allocation; controlled grazing; and watering. 

1.5 (-) Wildlife 

movement; 

habitat 

fragmentation 

(species 

dependent)

C. 2 (+/-) Wildlife 

population and 

distribution

C.7 (+) Aquatic health for 

humans, domestic, and wild 

animals

C.4 (+/-) Income and 

income stability 

(individuals and 

community)

C.6 (+/-) Recreational 

opportunities

I.1 (+/-) Net 

income

I.3 (+) Potential 

returns

I.9 (+) 

Streambank and 

shoreline stability

C.3 (+) Meeting State 

water quality standards

I.4 (+) Livestock 

food source

C.1 (+) Livestock 

health and production 

C.5 (+) Water quality 

and aquatic habitats

Prescribed Grazing (528)

D.2 (+) Control of livestock 

feeding and watering areas

D.3 (-) Wildlife, livestock, and human 

access to certain land uses, 

properties, or sensitive land areas

D.1 (+) Cost of 

installation and 

maintenance

I.7 (-) Soil 

erosion I.6 (-) 

Pathogens to 

surface waters

I.2 (+) Plant 

productivity and 

condition

I.10 (+) 

Riparian 

conditions

I.8 (+) Vegetation loss and 

soil erosion from livestock 

trailing along fence

Prescribed Grazing (528)

Trails and Walkways (575)

Access Control (472) Start

2. Physical barrier

Fence designed to meet 

local wildlife needs

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice 

Associated practice

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These 

symbols indicate only an 

increase (+) or a decrease (-) 

in the effect upon the resource, 

not whether the effect is 

beneficial or adverse.
Consent of Grant Thornton
LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











We have
issued our report dated February 21, 2008, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule included in
the Annual Report of Zones, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2007.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Registration Statements of Zones, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos.
333-87255, 333-110750, and 333-114945).








/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP





Seattle,
Washington


February
27, 2008
#### Quiner, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Walter Schins, Jr.,*attorney, and *Donald C. Jacobson*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *Orland S. Loomis,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM October 2017

Contour Farming (330) Initial setting: Sloping cropland, 

subject to sheet and rill erosion

1. Ridges 3. Reduced row grade

D.2 (-) Runoff velocity D.3 (+) Equipment

restrictions

D.1 (+) Time and skills

required by farmer D.4 (+) Water infiltration

Contour Buffer Strips (332)

Residue and Tillage 

Management (329, 345) 

Stable Infiltration Outlet 

(associated treatment

I.9 (-) Runoff

volume

I.8 (-) Waterborne

contaminants to

receiving water bodies

I.3 (-) Sheet and

rill erosion

I.4 (-) Sedimentborne

contaminants

I.1 (+) Soil health

I.2 (+) Crop

production

I.5 (+) Net return to

farmer

C.1 (+/-) Income and

income stability

(individuals and

community) 

(+)

I.6 (+) Labor costs

I.7 (-) Net return to

farmer

(+)

(-) 

I.10 (+) Water

storage in soil

profile

C.3 (+) Fishable and swimmable

waters; reduced health and safety

issues for humans, domestic, and

wild animals

(-) 

(+)

C.2 (+/-) Quality of

receiving waters

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Associated practice

Mitigating practice

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

2. Modified row direction

Start
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      In connection  with the annual report of New Century Equity Holdings Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  I, Steven J. Pully,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge that:

  (1) The Form 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2006,  filed with the
      Securities and Exchange  Commission on April 2, 2007,  fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
      of 1934; and

  (2) The  information  contained  in the Form 10-K  report  for the year  ended
      December 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of New Century Equity Holdings Corp.

By:  /s/ Steven J. Pully            Date: April 2, 2007
    --------------------                  -------------
Steven J. Pully
Chief Executive Officer
```
#### Stansfield, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *L. M. Evert*of Marinette.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *James E. Finnegan,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitcm,*assistant attorney general.

For the respondent George Banta Publishing Company: *Bouck, Hilton, Kluwin & Dempsey*of Oshkosh.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1



                                Promissory Note
$ 30,000.00 USD                  Temple, Texas                Date Oct. 18, 2000



FOR VALUE RECEIVED, after date, without grace, in the manner, on the dates, and
in the amounts so herein stipulated, the Undersigned, Communicate Now.com Inc.

PROMISE TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF : David Hancock, At Temple, Texas in Bell County 


                 THE SUM OF THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000.00)

In lawful money of the United States of America, which shall be legal tender, in
payments of all debts and dues, public and private at the time of payment, and
to pay interest thereon from the date until maturity at the rate of 6.5% per
annum, payable as stipulated herein.

THIS NOTE IS DUE AND PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS TO WIT:

Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) principal due in one year (on or before
October 16, 2001)

IT IS AGREED that time is of the essence of this agreement, and that in the
event of default in the payment of any installment of principal or interest when
due, the holder of this note may declare the entirety of the evidenced herby due
and payable without notice, and failure to exercise said option shall not
constitute a waiver on part of the holder of the right to exercise the same at
any other time.

IN THE EVENT of default in the making of any payment herein provided, either or
principal or interest, or in the event the entirety of said note evidenced
hereby is declared due, interest shall accrue at the rate of 10.0% per annum
from such time.

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES to pay all expenses incurred, including an
additional 10.0% on the amount of principal and interest hereof as attorney's
fees, all of which shall become part of the principal hereof, if this note is
placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, or if collected by suite or
through any probate, bankruptcy or other legal proceedings,

EACH MAKER, SURETY and endorser waives demand, grace, notice, presentment for
payment, and protest and agrees and consents that this note an the liens
securing its payment, may be renewed, and the time of payment extended without
 notice, and without releasing any of the parties.


                             CommunicateNow.Com Inc.


                            David Hancock, President
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES--OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clive
Kabatznik, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes--Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                                /s/ Clive Kabatznik
                                                ------------------------
                                                Name: Clive Kabatznik
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                Date: May 16, 2005

                                       21
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 11417 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. RONALD CONNER,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CV

- 752

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * This appeal concerns the district court’s order holding Conner in contempt. On February 4, 2019 , we directed both parties to address whether this case is moot in the light of the district court’s order vacating the contempt order . In their responses to the court’s directive, both parties acknowledge that
the case is now moot. We agree

. T he district co urt vacated the contempt order

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 13, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-11417 Document: 00514870982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2019No. 17

- 11417

2 and released Conner from custody

— he is no longer suffering any injury or limitation as a result of the contempt order , rendering the sole issue on appeal
moot. See Fontenot v. McCraw , 777 F.3d 741, 747 (5th Cir. 2015). DISM ISSED AS MOOT. Case: 17-11417 Document: 00514870982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2019
# C_2004118EN.01003402.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/34

---

Action brought on 14 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of France

(Case C-177/04)

(2004/C 118/65)

An action against the Republic of France was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | find that, by failing to take the measures required to implement the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 25 April 2002 in Case C-52/00 on the incorrect transposition of Directive 85/374/EEC (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; |
| --- | --- |

1.

find that, by failing to take the measures required to implement the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 25 April 2002 in Case C-52/00 on the incorrect transposition of Directive 85/374/EEC (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

1

| 2. | order the French Republic to pay the Commission of the European Communities (Community own resources account) a fine of EURO 137,150 per day of delay in implementing the judgment in Case C-52/00 from the day on which judgment is delivered in this case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-52/00 (2) is implemented; |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the French Republic to pay the Commission of the European Communities (Community own resources account) a fine of EURO 137,150 per day of delay in implementing the judgment in Case C-52/00 from the day on which judgment is delivered in this case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-52/00 (2) is implemented;

2

| 3. | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Implementation of the judgment of the Court of 25 April 2002 entails amending provisions of the French civil code that are incompatible with Directive 85/374. The French Republic ought therefore to have begun the necessary legislative procedure immediately after the judgment was delivered. However the amendments have still not been adopted. A fine of EURO 137,150 per day of delay in implementing the judgement is appropriate to the seriousness and durations of the infringement and takes account of the requirement that the penalty be effective.

---

(1)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products

1

(2)  [2002] ECR I-3827

2

---
cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. Sally Loehrer, Senior Judge Michael Anthony Brandon Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A
# C_2004156EN.01000401.xml

| 12.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Domstolen (Sweden) by order of that court of 30 March 2004 in case of Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pieree and Tony Staf against Riksåklagaren

(Case C-170/04)

(2004/C 156/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen (Court of Appeal for Western Sweden) of 30 March 2004 received at the Court Registry on 6 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pieree and Tony Staf against Riksåklagaren the following questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 28, 30 and 31 of the EC Treaty:

| 1. | Can it be held that the above mentioned ban on imports constitutes part of the retail monopoly's manner of operation and that on that basis it is not precluded by Article 28 and is to be examined only in the light of Article 31? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it be held that the above mentioned ban on imports constitutes part of the retail monopoly's manner of operation and that on that basis it is not precluded by Article 28 and is to be examined only in the light of Article 31?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the ban on imports in such a case compatible with the conditions laid down for State monopolies in Article 31? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the ban on imports in such a case compatible with the conditions laid down for State monopolies in Article 31?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 1 is no, is Article 28 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it in principle precludes the current ban on imports despite the obligation of the Systembolaget to obtain, upon request, alcoholic beverages which it does not hold in stock? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is no, is Article 28 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it in principle precludes the current ban on imports despite the obligation of the Systembolaget to obtain, upon request, alcoholic beverages which it does not hold in stock?

| 4. | If the answer to Question 3 is yes, can such a ban on imports be considered justified and proportional in order to protect health and life of humans?on the following question: |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is yes, can such a ban on imports be considered justified and proportional in order to protect health and life of humans?on the following question:

---
HomeRadioactive WasteDecommissioningRegulations, Guidance, and Communications

# Decommissioning Regulations

The NRC's regulations are found in Chapter I of Title 10, "Energy," of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (CFR). Chapter I is divided into Parts 1 through 199. Part 20, Subpart E provides the main decommissioning requirements. The following parts are most applicable to decommissioning:
            - Part 20 , Subpart E, Standards for Protection Against Radiation	               - Frequently Asked Questions  About Health Physics Based on 10 CFR Part 20
              - Health Physics Positions  Based on 10 CFR Part 20 
            - Part 30.36 , Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material
            - Part 40.42 , Domestic Licensing of Source Material
            - Part 50 , Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities
            - Part 51 , Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions
            - Part 70.38 , Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material
            - Part 72.54 , Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste
            - Part 73 , Physical Protection of Plants and Materials

Refer to NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Section 5.1 on timing of decommissioning.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, February 28, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Decommissioning Communications
          - Decommissioning Regulations
          - Decommissioning Guidance

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Related Information

            - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, February 28, 2022