alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004228EN.01003401.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/34

---

Action brought on 2 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-333/04)

(2004/C 228/70)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Horstpeter Kreppel, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, measures and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, measures and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposing the directive expired on 30 June 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 23 of 28.1.2000, p. 57.

1

---
#### Richard Goode and others, *v*. Joseph Goode and others.

From Rutherford.

Ex’rs. and AdmTs. An account cannot be decreed of the personal estate of a deceased person without making1 the executor or administrator a party to the petition.

.Executors *de son tort*are not answerable to the distributees on a petition .filed by them as against a rightful executor ; for if a decree should 1 he made for petitioners and they receive the property under it, they thereby become themselves executors *de son tort,*and a court of equity will never become accessary to such an act, or so far disregard the rights of creditors.

This was a petition filed in the county court, for an account and distribution of the personal estate of Judith Goode,-who died intestate. The petition charged that the Petitioners and Defendants were the next of kin of the said Judith, and entitled to. distribution of her estate. That the said Judith died intestate, and the Defendants took the «state into their hands as executors, and* *336Were bound to distribute it. The Defendants filed their-answer, and the cause was heard in the county court, and dismissed *;*from which decree there was an appeal to j|ie supci-ioj. court, when the decree of the county court was affirmed, upon the ground that no administration of the eslafebf the intestate, bad been taken. From that dc-cree the Petitioners appealed to this Court.

RueffN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The question in this case is, whether an account cart l)e decreed of the personal estate of a deceased person, Without making the executor or administrator a party to the bill ? and we think it cannot. The case of Humphreys and wife *v.*Humphreys, (a) is a direct authority to this point. It is ti-ue, that here the Defendants are ealied *executors*in the petition ; but the petition also charges that Judith Goode died *intestate.*This therefore is an attempt to snake executor:-; *áeson tort,*answerable to distributees, which we are satisfied, from the reasons given in the case just cited, ought not to *be*done. There-is another consideration that has great weight with us, which is, that if a decree should be made for the petitioners, and they' receive the property under it, they would themselves thereby become executors *de son tori;*which implies a wrongful interference with the property of the intestate. A court of equity can never be accessary to Such an act, or so far disregard the rights of creditors. The decree of the superior court must be affirmed.

(a)

**3 P. Wms. 348.
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Foothills Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: April 12, 2007 |   | By:         /s/ Dennis B. Tower            

Name:   Dennis B. TowerTitle:     Chief Executive Officer |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3285

___________________________

Joe Leonard Bell, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DannyBurl,Warden,East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC (originallynamed asD.Burl)

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Jeremy Andrews, Major, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC (originally named as

Jermy C. Andrews)

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

Curtis L. Rolfe, III, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: May 20, 2015

Filed: July 1, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Joe Bell, Jr. brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming, as

relevant to this appeal, that defendant Jeremy Andrews, a correctional officer at the

facility where Bell was imprisoned, retaliated against Bell for exercising his

constitutional rights. Andrews moved for summary judgment, based in part on

qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, and Andrews appeals. 1

Having confined our review, as we must, to issues of law, see Stoner v.

Watlingten, 735 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 2013) (de novo review); Robbins v. Becker,

715 F.3d 691, 693 (8thCir. 2013) (jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity

exists only to extent that denial turns on issue of law), we conclude that the court

properly denied the motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 

A § 1983 retaliation claim requires the plaintiff to “show (1) he engaged in a

protected activity, (2) the government official took adverse action against him that

would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing the activity, and (3) the

adverse action was motivated at least in part by the exercise ofthe protected activity.” 

Spencer v. Jackson Cnty., 738 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). 

“The retaliatory conduct itself need not be a constitutional violation; the violation is

acting in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.” Id.

(quotation omitted). We find no legal error in the district court’s conclusion that

Bell’s reassignment to the hoe squad, after he had successfully contested prisondisciplinary chargesinitiated by Andrews, amounted to a constitutional violation that

was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id. (worsening

inmate’s working conditionsmay constitute adverse action); Dible v.Scholl, 506 F.3d

The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J.

Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
1106, 1111 (8th Cir. 2007) (court has broad view of what makes “clearly established

law” for purposes of qualified immunity). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. 47B.

______________________________

-3-
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





By:
/s/ Michael J. DeeName:
Michael J. DeeTitle:
President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ William C. Wiedel, Jr.Name:
William C. Wiedel, Jr.Title:
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





May 16, 2011
Prepared by MerrillDirect





Exhibit 10.6


FIRST AMENDMENT TO

IPO APPROVAL AND LOCKUP AGREEMENT


             This
First Amendment to IPO Approval and Lockup Agreement (the “First Amendment”),
amends Section 2 of the Initial Public Offering (the “IPO”) and Lockup
Agreement (the “Lockup Agreement”) among Nextel WIP Corp., Nextel Partners,
Inc. (the “Company”), DLJ Merchant Banking Partners, II, LP, Madison Dearborn
Capital Partners II, L.P., Eagle River Investments, LLC,  John Chapple, John Thompson, David Thaler,
Dave Aas, Perry Saterlee, Mark Fanning, and Don Manning.


	1.	Section
  2 of the Lockup Agreement provides for an eighteen (18) month lockup from and
  after the IPO of the Company.
	 	 	 
	2.	Those
  shareholders who are a party to the Amended and Restated Shareholders
  Agreement applicable to the Company have agreed to Amendment NO. 3 to the
  Shareholders Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto.
	 	 	 
	3.	The
  parties to this First Amendment agree that the eighteen (18) month lockup
  provided in Section 2 of the Lockup Agreement shall terminate as to all
  signatories thereto upon the occurrence of both of the following
  circumstances:
	 	 	 
	 	(a)       Any Pledgor  under a financing permitted by new Section 3.09 or the
  Shareholders Agreement has been directed make a collateral call or otherwise
  pay down or fund a default in a financing transaction secured by Company
  stock; and
	 	 	 
	 	(b)	Said
  Pledgor has, after a 24 hour period, failed to take such directed action.
	 	 	 
	4.	For
  purposes of this First Amendment, Pledgor means any Shareholder who is a
  party to the Shareholders’ Agreement as amended and who pledges any of its
  Shares in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Shareholders’ Agreement as
  amended by Amendment No. 3 thereto.
	 	 	 
	5.	Capitalized
  terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
  to them in the Shareholders’ Agreement as amended.
				



Dated as of this 18th day of April
2001.





 



	 	 
	Nextel
  WIP Corp.	Nextel
  Partners, Inc.
	 	 
	By:	 /s/ Tim Donahue

	By:	 /s/ John Chapple


	 	John
  Chapple, CEO
	 	 
	DLJ
  Merchant BankingPartners II, LP	Madison
  Dearborn CapitalPartners II, L.P.
	 	 
	By:

	DLJ
  Merchant Banking II, Inc., as 

  managing general partner	By:

	Madison
  Dearborn Partners, II L.P., its general partner


	 	 
	 	By:

	Madison
  Dearborn Partners, Inc. Its general partner


	 	 
	By:	 /s/ Andy Rush

	By:	 /s/ Andrew E Sinwell


	 	Andy
  Rush, Managing Director

	Andrew
  E. Sinwell, Managing Director


	 	 
	Eagle
  River Investment, LLC	 
	 	 
	By:	 /s/ Dennis Weibling

	 /s/ John D. Thompson


	Dennis
  Weibling, President	John
  Thompson
	 	 
	 /s/ John Chapple

	 /s/ David Thaler


	John
  Chapple	David
  Thaler
	 	 
	 /s/ David Aas

	 /s/ Perry Satterlee


	David
  Aas	Perry
  Satterlee
	 	 
	 /s/ Mark Fanning

	 /s / Donald J. Manning


	Mark
  Fanning	Donald
  Manning
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2004201EN.01002501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/25 |

---

(2004/C 201/49)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
Official Journal of the European Union

[OJ C 190, 24.7.2004](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2004_190_R_TOC)

Past publications

[OJ C 179, 10.7.2004](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2004_179_R_TOC)

[OJ C 168, 26.6.2004](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2004_168_R_TOC)

[OJ C 156, 12.6.2004](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2004_156_R_TOC)

[OJ C 146, 29.5.2004](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2004_146_R_TOC)

[OJ C 106, 30.4.2004](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2004_106_R_TOC)

[OJ C 94, 17.4.2004](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2004_094_R_TOC)

These texts are available on:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |

---
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-3005

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Paula Cole lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ Submitted: February 10, 2021 Filed: February 16, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Paula Cole appeals after she pleaded guilty to perjury and the district court 1 imposed a sentence that varied downward from the advisory sentencing guideline

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.range. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the four-month prison sentence and four-month home detention as unreasonable. Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 694 (8th Cir. 2019); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.

______________________________

-2-
# Soil Health Education and Outreach

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Conservation Basics 
-  Natural Resource Concerns 
-  Soil Health 
-  Soil Health Education and Outreach 

Lesson plans, educator guides, soil quality test kits, soil health posters, and other educational resources about soil health. 

## Soil Life Website and Video Series

SoilLife.org is a collaborative project between NRCS and the University of California, Davis that aims to educate people about the necessity of soil to support and sustain life. See this UC Davis blog about the project. The interactive website and an animated video series highlights the connection between healthy soils, healthy plants, healthy people, and a healthy planet.

##   Soil Quality Lesson Plans

Filtration Lesson Plan(1.12 MB)

Soil Glue Lesson Plan(2.84 MB)

Soil Water Lesson Plan(1.06 MB)

##   Soil Health Posters

Soil Biology Key Educational Messages(35 KB)

Three Soil Biology Classroom Activities(160.52 KB)

On-Site Soil Quality Indicators Poster(16.93 MB)

##   Soil Quality Tests

Soil Quality Test Kit Guide(1.76 MB)

Guía para la Evaluación de la Calidad y Salud del Suelo(3.26 MB)

Soil Quality Evaluation Worksheet(58 KB)

Soil Quality Test Bucket(918.96 KB)

##   Related Pages

### Soil Health Educators Guide

Soil Health Kit Guides and Videos to help teachers and educators implement their soils curriculum.

Soil Health
<PAGE>1




                                   Exhibit 32


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant hereby certify that
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                              By:/s/ Joseph J. Bouffard
                                 -----------------------------------
                                 Name: Joseph J. Bouffard
                                 Title:President and Chief Executive Officer

                                 May 13, 2004


                              By:/s/ Michael J. Dee
                                 -----------------------------------
                                 Name:    Michael J. Dee
                                 Title:   Chief Financial Officer and Controller

                                 May 13, 2004
# Contour Buffer Strips (Ac.) (332) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Contour Buffer Strips (Ac.) (332) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Contour Buffer Strips (Ac.) (332).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Contour Buffer Strips (Ac.) (332) (9/14) Standard Document(45.16 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Contour Buffer Strips (Ac.) (332) Overview(233.72 KB)

Contour Buffer Strips (Ac.) (332) CPPE(26.84 KB)

Contour Buffer Strips (Ac.) (332) Network Diagram(121.38 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2154 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2154

 To rename the Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, 
  North Dakota, as the Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2017

  Mr. Cramer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To rename the Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, 
  North Dakota, as the Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center.

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

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF THE RED RIVER VALLEY AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 
              CENTER IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA AS THE EDWARD T. SCHAFER 
              AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER.

    (a) Renaming.--The Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center in 
Fargo, North Dakota, shall hereafter be known and designated as the 
``Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, map, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - 50 CFR Part 665
          - RIN 0648-XD745

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notification of lobster harvest guideline.

# SUMMARY:

NMFS establishes the annual harvest guideline for the commercial lobster fishery in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands for calendar year 2015 at zero lobsters.

# DATES:

February 6, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bob Harman, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, tel 808-725-5170.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) commercial lobster fishery is managed under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago. The regulations at 50 CFR 665.252(b) require NMFS to publish an annual harvest guideline for lobster Permit Area 1, comprised of Federal waters around the NWHI. Regulations governing the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the NWHI prohibit the unpermitted removal of monument resources (50 CFR 404.7), and establish a zero annual harvest guideline for lobsters (50 CFR 404.10(a)). Accordingly, NMFS establishes the harvest guideline for the NWHI commercial lobster fishery for calendar year 2015 at zero lobsters. Thus, no harvest of NWHI lobster resources is allowed.

Authority:16 U.S.C. 1801*et seq.*

Dated: February 3, 2015

H. Menashes,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2015-02419 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P