alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Tannenbaum, Appellant, vs. Tannenbaum, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Rubin & Zabel*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Bouck, Hilton, KUvwin & Dempsey*of Oshkosh.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of that court of 28 September 2004 in the case of Alexander Jehle and Weinhaus Kiderlen against Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-489/04)

(2005/C 45/25)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Sigmaringen (Fourth Chamber) (Germany) of 28 September 2004, received at the Court Registry on 29 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Alexander Jehle and Weinhaus Kiderlen against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:

----

(1)  OJ L 155, p. 27.

----
ACCEPTED 06-15-00151-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/4/2015 10:01:44 AM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNAL
CONTROL STRUCTURE RELATIVE TO THE SERVICING OF
HOME LOAN RECEIVABLES


The management of the Bank is responsible for establishing and maintaining
the internal control structure.  In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates
and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and
related costs of control procedures.  The objectives of an internal control
structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute,
assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or
disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance with
management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation
of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States.

We have performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Bank's internal
control structure based on the criteria established in Internal Control -
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations
of the Treadway Commission ("COSO") relative to the servicing of home loan
receivables owned by Chevy Chase Home Loan Trusts Series 1996-1 and
1997-1 (collectively referred to as the "Trusts" herein) as of September 30,
2001, and we have determined that the Bank maintained an effective internal
control structure over financial reporting relative to the servicing of home
loan receivables owned by the Trusts as of September 30, 2001.

However, there are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any internal
control structure, including the possibility of human error and the
circumvention or overriding of controls.  Accordingly, even an effective
internal control structure can provide only reasonable assurance with respect
to reliability of financial statements and safeguarding and management of
assets.  Furthermore, the effectiveness of any internal control structure
can change with changes in circumstances.


_____________________	                     _________________________
Russell J. McAtee		             Stephen R. Halpin, Jr.
Senior Vice President			     Executive Vice President and
					     Chief Financial Officer

_____________________
George P. Clancy, Jr.
Executive Vice President

October 17, 2001
-TOPSECRET

Mallarnin IDEALIST

• OXCART

Aujust 20, 1968

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. F X

SUBJECT: Review of the 100th SRW

The OSD Review Panel conducted their evaluation of the 100th

SRW PCR on 26 July 1968. The majority opinion and also the one

concurred with by DIA approved the entire FY 70 program as submitted by the Air Force with the exception of a level of funding identified for the out years. This included approval of the continuation of

the COMPASS ARROW drone system for 12 vehicles for FY 70. On

13 August 1968 General Carroll briefed Mr. Nitze on the 100th SRW

PCR. Also in attendance at this briefing were Dr. Ivan Selin, OSD (SA),

Dr. John S. Foster, DDR&E, and Col Robert Morrison, OSD (A).

At that time Mr. Nitze's only criticism of the PCR was that funds

were not identified for the out years. He directed General Carroll to

determine a realistic funding level for the out years, and suggested

that a force mix of 20 147T-and 20 147S drones should be costed out

for this purpose. The next day. 14 August, General Carroll and group

returned to brief Mr. Nitze. At that time, Mr. Nitze commented that

inclusion of the 154 drones was in contradiction to his previous decision

to terminate COMPASS ARROW and to remove the 154s from the PCD.

At a later session, exact time unknown, Mr. Nitze is reported to

have stated that he desired to have an evaluation made of the TAGBOARD,

SR-71, 154; 14? and U-2 programs so that he could address the total reconnaissance capability rather than make a decision on individual systems.

This was followed by a memorandum issued to reflect the above guidance

(Attachment 1). The memorandum states that a panel headed by Mr.

Horwitz would be convened to evaluate the total reconnaissance system

program prior to any decision. A suspense of 1 November was placed on

the answer back to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

IDEALIST

OXCART

TOPIECRETCamille WIIMI*IK of illtaiNibi

NS • M, Wei fl• 0001 *Ov *Ph*

COMP, MO

COOT Of 1:0•11111.

Or__
-TOP-SECRETtom

IDEALIST

OXCART

The Secretary of the Air Force, in a note to Dr. Flax written

on the Mr. Nitze memorandum, stated that Mr. Harry Davis could

be the Air Force representative on the panel, and that the Director

NRO would assign a member of his staff as the NRO representative.

Due to some confusion prior to receipt of the actual memo and

attached SAF note, Col Beerli attended as the Air Force representative to the panel and Col Hartley attended as the NRO representative

at the first session on Monday, 19 August.

Since the evaluation panel is assigned with the task of identifying

the force mix of these major reconnaissance systems and with the

possible elimination of some systems, their recommendation could

have a tremendous impact on the intelligence collection capability of

the nation.

o onel, USAF

IDEALIST

OXCART

--TOP-SECREF11000 autOssUlc mammIG

ON ...scowl WOO Is Oen 501 i•Ol•

CAM,' Si

Coo.

er *Nett

MN 110 PISS
# C_2005006EN.01001401.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 18 November 2004

in Case C-284/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Etat belge v Temco Europe SA (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(b) - Exempt transactions - Letting of immovable property - Licence to occupy)

(2005/C 6/24)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-284/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal) (Belgium), by decision of 19 June 2003, received at the Court on 2 July 2003, in the proceedings between Etat belge and Temco Europe SA — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) must be interpreted as meaning that transactions by which one company, through a number of contracts, simultaneously grants associated companies a licence to occupy a single property in return for a payment set essentially on the basis of the area occupied and by which the contracts, as performed, have as their essential object the making available, in a passive manner, of premises or parts of buildings in return for a payment linked to the passage of time, are transactions comprising the ‘letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision and not the provision of a service capable of being categorised in a different way.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

1

---
# Mulching (Ac.) (484) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Mulching (Ac.) (484) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Mulching (Ac.) (484).

## 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)

Mulching (Ac.) (484) (10/17) Standard Document(215.16 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Mulching (Ac.) (484) Overview(332.77 KB)

Mulching (Ac.) (484) CPPE(44.88 KB)

Mulching (Ac.) (484) Network Diagram(51.15 KB)

## Conservation at Work: Mulching

This video explores how Michael Catalano implemented this conservation practice on his farm in Mannington, New Jersey.

##   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
ex4_10.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
4.10

    


    


    Section
6(a) of the Master Trust Agreement was amended, effective March 19, 2008, and
now reads as follows:

    


    Section 6.  Participant
Direction.

     

    (a)  Investments.

    Each
Participant shall be responsible for directing the Master Trustee in which
investment option(s) to invest the assets in the Participant's individual
accounts.  Such directions may be made by Participants by use of the
telephone exchange system, the internet or in such other manner as may be agreed
upon from time to time by Ford and the Master Trustee, in accordance with
written Exchange Guidelines attached to Part I of Exhibit 2 (DC) to the separate
Recordkeeping Agreement as Schedule "C".

    


    In the
event that Master Trustee fails to receive a proper direction from the
Participant with regard to the SSIP or the TESPHE, the assets in question shall
be invested in the Fidelity Freedom Fund determined according to a methodology
selected by Ford and communicated to Master Trustee in writing.  In
case of unallocated Plan assets or the termination or reallocation of an
investment option, the Plan's default investment shall be the Fidelity Freedom
Income Fund.

    


    In the
event that the Master Trustee fails to receive a proper direction from the
Participant with regard to the FRP, the assets shall be invested in the Fidelity
Freedom Fund determined according to a methodology selected by Ford and
communicated to the Master Trustee in writing.  Any assets in the FRP,
SSIP and TESPHE Forfeiture Accounts will be invested in the Interest Income
Fund.  In the case of any other unallocated Plan assets for which the
Master Trustee does not have proper direction, the Plan's default investment
shall be the Interest Income Fund.  Neither Ford nor the Master
Trustee shall be liable for any Losses, or by reason of any breach, which arises
from a Participant's exercise or non-exercise of rights under this Agreement
over the assets in the Participant's accounts.
# C_2004314EN.01001702.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/17

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 6 October 2004

in Case T-356/02: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier figurative mark including the verbal element ‘Krafft’ - Application for Community word mark VITAKRAFT - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

(2004/C 314/44)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-356/02: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bremen (Germany), represented by U. Sander, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. Apostolakis and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal and intervener before the Court of First Instance being Krafft, SA, established in Andoain (Spain), represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer — ACTION seeking the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2002 (Joined Cases R 506/2000-4 and R 581/2000-4) in opposition proceedings between Krafft, SA, and Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 September 2002 (Joined Cases R 506/2000-4 and R 581/2000-4) in so far as it allowed the intervener's appeal before the Board of Appeal concerning the goods ‘industrial oils and greases; lubricants; fuels (including motor spirit) and illuminants’ (Class 4) and the goods ‘building materials (not metallic); non-metallic rigid pipes for building, asphalt, pitch and bitumen’ (Class 19) contained in the Community trade mark application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 September 2002 (Joined Cases R 506/2000-4 and R 581/2000-4) in so far as it allowed the intervener's appeal before the Board of Appeal concerning the goods ‘industrial oils and greases; lubricants; fuels (including motor spirit) and illuminants’ (Class 4) and the goods ‘building materials (not metallic); non-metallic rigid pipes for building, asphalt, pitch and bitumen’ (Class 19) contained in the Community trade mark application;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.

---
, . . , '. 

rx·f \,.• ', 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05114990 d •.,f,tl IA -- " 

30 December .1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Minutes of the :Meeting of the 303 Committee~~-~.E...12i2 

PRESENT: Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Johnson, and General Cushman. 

Mr. Packard was out of the city. 

Mr. Thomas Kar.:imessines and Mr. Wymberley DeR. Coerr 

were also present. 

Aerial Reconnaissance of South China 

a. The Chairman informed the members that on 8 December 1969 

higher authority had authorized four more 147T drone reconnaissance 

overflights of South China. However, because of the coinciding 

Chinese Communist approach for resumption of the Warsaw Talks, he 

had spoken to higher authority and it had been agre·ed that these 

flights would not be implemented for the time being. 

b. The Ch3irman requested General Cushn~n to provide an 

up-to-date intelligence justification for dror.e overflights of 

South China whic·1 General Cushman undertook tc, do in coordination 

with the Departm~nt of Defense, 

Distribution 

Mr. Mitchell 

~~· ·~ -----·-~-1Mr. Packard 

Mr. Johnson 

Hr. Helms 

BYE 106,279-69 

Copy .3d,of 5 copies 

,<l!,~~ 3o :,,~! / 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05114990
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 9 JULY 2012 

po ...... 

I:.:.' 

'. BYE-6J95-.R_ . COp"LO~.,.iu US" 

Tbe Bonorable Alexander B. Flax 

Director. Ha~ional Reconnaissance 

Office 

BOOII . 4E968, PentaloD 

Dear .11: 

1Ir. Bel_ asked that I conv., to 10U 

bis approval of your request·to delete QUILL a. 

a B1BUAH project indicator • . 

Distribution: 

Cy 1 - D/NRO 

2 - O/DCI for into 

....a-- SMS/DDS&T 

4 - DD/S&T Registry 

Sincere11 •. 

Carl E. Duckett, 

Deputy Director 

for 

SClence and "l'ecbDOlol1 

5 - try O/DD/ Feb 69 

_ ...... " ........ f.... ; 

"£ZCllif:L, ,: 

~:!g:L:h~·L~. i '£EtiRET ,,'. , 

HANDI..E ViA ~.; • .;: ••• ,;.~.;. 

c:O~TROI.. Sysr;;:M ONL.Y 

.">' 

'":',,' 

,,(- . ~ ...... ~ 

"'", c. 

;.;'. 

. :,'" .. : 

~'. .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GERALD LAMONTE STEELE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00338-NCT-1)

Submitted: September 21, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting 

United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Lamonte Steele pleaded guilty to maintaining a premises for distributing 

heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (2012). The district court sentenced Steele above 

the advisory Guidelines range to 41 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Steele challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We 

review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see also United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 229 

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1833 (2016). In so doing, we examine the sentence for 

“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) 

the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 

U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, 

or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We then 

review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 

155, 161 (4th Cir 2008). If a district court imposes a sentence outside of the advisory 

Guidelines range, we do not impose a presumption of reasonableness, but give due 

deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors justified the extent of 

the variance. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence 

substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines 

range, responded to the parties’ sentencing arguments, and thoroughly explained the 
3

chosen sentence. In addition, based on the factors identified by the district court, the 

sentence is also substantively reasonable. 

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
November 2022

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Riparian Herbaceous Cover (Code 390) 

Riparian herbaceous cover is establishment and

maintenance of grasses, grass-like plants, and forbs that

are tolerant of intermittent flooding or saturated soils and

that are established or managed in the transitional zone

between terrestrial and aquatic habitats. 

Practice Information 

This practice is used on lands along water courses or at the

boundary of water bodies or wetlands where the natural or

desired plant community is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. ;The ecosystem has been disturbed

and the natural plant community is missing, changed, or has been converted to agricultural crops,

lawns, or other high maintenance vegetation; or invasive species dominate. 

The purposes of this practice include: 

• Provision of food, shelter, shading substrate, access to adjacent habitats. 

• Nursery habitat and pathways for movement by resident and nonresident aquatic, semiaquatic,

and terrestrial organisms. 

• Improvement and protection of water quality. 

• Stabilization of streambanks and shorelines. , 

• Increased net carbon storage in the biomass and soil. 

Common Associated Practices 

Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390) is commonly applied with conservation practices such as Fence

(382), Use Exclusion (472), Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management (644), Prescribed Grazing (528),

Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580), Stream Crossing (578), and Watering Facility (614). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ROBERT L. BEAVIS, EUGENE R. BISCAILUZ, 

ALAN G. CHESTERMAN, JOAN DONOHUE, on 

behalf of Todd Donohue, ALLEN V. HARINCK, 

RANDOLPH K. HINZ, JR., GERALD J. INNELLA, 

KENNETH N. OLSON, DAVID E. OTT, JOSHUA 

S. RABINOWITZ, JEROME J. SCHUCK, JAMES 

W. SCHULTZ, JR., WILLIAM A. TAYLOR, 

GAETAN A. PASSANNANTE, RICHARD 

KAAPUNI, GARY W. DAVIS, THOMAS F. SPAYD, 

WILLIAM J. ROGALSKI, DIANA RAYMOND, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-2222

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:09-cv-33307-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz. 

______________________

Case: 23-2222 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 08/28/2023
2 BEAVIS V. US

O R D E R

The appellants having failed to pay the docketing fee 

required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time 

permitted by the rules, it is 

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same 

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

August 28, 2023

Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 28, 2023

Case: 23-2222 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 08/28/2023