alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Goodnough vs. The City of Oshkosh

*Municipal*corporations, *when liable for wjwries ecmsed by defective highway.*

In an action against a city for injuries resulting from the defective condition of a sidewalk, plaintiff must show that the city authorities had actual notice of the defect, or that it was of such a nature, and had existed for so long a time, that knowledge on their part must he presumed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

Action against *The City of OshTcosh,*to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff’s person, occasioned by a defect in one of the sidewalks of the city. The facts proven on the trial are sufficiently stated in the opinion. A verdict for the plaintiff was set aside, on motion, and a new trial ordered; and plaintiff appealed from the order.

*JaeTcson & Halsey,*for appellant.

*James Freeman,*for respondent.

Dixon, C. J.

The counsel for the plaintiff having been absent from the court below when the motion for a new trial was granted, and not being informed upon what particular point of law or fact the verdict was set aside, have very fully and successfully answered many points which they supposed might be urged in support of the order. But they have, as we think, failed to discover and discuss what must have been the real point of objection in the mind of the court below. The injury sustained by the plaintiff was caused by a defect *550in a sidewalk which had once been properly built. It was a defect of a kind not easily to be seen or discovered. A plank had become loosened from the stringers, and when the plaintiff stepped upon it, it tipped up, and she fell, dislocating her ankle and fracturing tho largest bone *of*her leg below the knee. On examining the testimony, which is reported in full in the bill of exceptions, we find no sufficient evidence that the city authorities had notice of the defective condition of the sidewalk so as to charge the city with liability for the injury. The alderman and street commissioner for the ward in which the sidewalk was, testified that he frequently traveled over the sidewalk in question, and that he had not any notice of its being out of repair. The plaintiff received her injury on the 7th day of May. The street superintendent testified that he examined the sidewalk at the place of injury about the first of the same month, and it was not out of repair. This is all the testimony with regard to the knowledge of the city officers. In cases like this, where the defect in the highway is of recent occurrence, it is necessary not only to show that the injury was caused by reason of such defect, but also that the public authorities had notice of it, or that it was of such a nature, and had existed for such a length of time, that knowledge on their part must be presumed. See *Ward v. The Town of*Jefferson, ante, p. 342, and cases cited; *Cook v.*Milwaukee, ante, p. 270.

This, we believe, must have been the point on which the court below granted the motion, and the testimony in support of the verdict was in this respect so very slight and unsatisfactory, that we think the verdict was properly set aside.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

K.J. BRUBAKER, M.C. HOLIFIELD, T.J. STINSON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JASON IDANAN

ENGINEMAN SECOND CLASS (E-5), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201500258

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 31 March 2015.

Military Judge: CAPT A.H. Henderson, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47).

For Appellant: LT Doug Ottenwess, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.

31 December 2015

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT 

---------------------------------------------------

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted without 

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by 

the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 

10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2016

No. 04-15-00817-CR

William Joe RHOMER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR9066

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 After this court granted two prior extension of time, the State’s brief was due November 

21, 2016. The State has now filed a third motion for extension of time, asking for another thirty 

days in which to file its brief. After review, we GRANT the State’s motion and ORDER the 

State to file its brief in this court on or before December 21, 2016. The State is advised that no 

further extension of time to file the brief will be granted absent written proof of extraordinary 

circumstances.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2015306EN.01000201.xml

| 17.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 306/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7731 — Bpifrance/Springwater/Delion France)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 306/03)

On 9 September 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7731. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7731. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ DELIA GARCIA, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs , Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1656

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 18

- 6558.

______________________
Before L OURIE , H UGHES , and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
In response to this court’s May 9, 2023, show cause order, t he Secretary of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Delia Garcia responds, requesting

“ an opportunity [ to ] lay out [her] entire case.” ECF No. 9 at 3.
The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered judgment in this case o n September 7, Case: 23-1656 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 07/27/2023GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH 2

2022

. In March 2023, t he Veterans Court received Ms. Garcia ’s notice of appeal

. *
To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the Veterans Court within 60 days of the entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Like appeals from district courts, thestatutorily prescribed time for filing appeals from the Veterans Court to this court is mandatory and jurisdictional

,meaning that we cannot take account of individual circumstances for the untimely filing

. See Wagner v. Shinseki , 733 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Henderson v. Shinseki , 562 U.S. 428, 438

– 39 (2011) (indicating jurisdictional restrictions on the time for taking an appeal under section 7292(a)). B ecause Ms. Garcia’s notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days of any final judgment or order of the Veterans Court

, we must dismiss the appeal.
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Ju ly 27

, 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court

* The notice indicated Ms. Garcia was seeking review of a final judgment or order entered on “2/26/23,”though the Veterans Court docket in the identified proceeding does not reflect any entry between November 8, 2022, and March 2023. Case: 23-1656 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 07/27/2023
Appendix 7 

Acute Impacts Refined Analysis Figures 
Refined Acute Modeling Approach 

 Initial acute screening risk calculations were performed with the HEM-3 model. 

HEM-3 estimates acute (1-hour) impacts at both polar and census block receptors. It is 

assumed for this short period of time that an exposed individual could be located at any 

off-site location. The lack of readily available detailed property boundary information 

for many of the facilities evaluated made it difficult to determine whether receptors were 

on- or off-site. In the absence of such information, the first ring of polar receptors was 

placed 100 meters from the plant center for many facilities. However, these polar rings 

often transected on-site locations, restricting public access to exposures at these levels 

and thereby overestimating exposures. 

 The screening approach used by HEM-3 to estimate maximum 1-hour exposures 

also likely overestimates. To estimate maximum 1-hour concentrations at each receptor, 

HEM-3 sums the maximum concentrations attributed to each source, regardless of 

whether those maximum concentrations occurred during the same hour. In other words, 

HEM-3 assumes that the maximum impact from each source at each receptor occurs at 

the same time. In actuality, maximum impacts from different sources may occur at 

different times. 

 This appendix includes the results of refined acute assessments performed for 

facilities that exceeded short-term health benchmarks using the HEM-3 approach. The 

refinements can address both areas of conservatism described above. The simplest 

refinement is to plot the HEM-3 polar grid results on aerial photographs of the facilities; 

This allows the assessment of off-site locations that may be accessible to the public (e.g.,

roadways and public buildings.). In cases where this refinement results in lower acute 

risks no further refinement was conducted. However, if acute risk still remain at or near 

levels of concern a further refinement is conducted. This second refinement includes 

remodeling with the AERMOD model directly (instead of using HEM) to estimate 

maximum 1-hour concentrations at each receptor by pairing individual source impacts in 

time and space. The AERMOD results are then plotted on aerial photographs as noted 

above to determine off-site impacts. Modeling with AERMOD also allows the 

estimation of the frequency of higher impacts at or above the health levels of concern. 

The attached figures present the estimated hazard quotient values (the modeled 1-hour 

concentration of a pollutant divided by its short-term health benchmark) at the polar 

receptors near the facilities. Each set of figures is prefaced with a description of the 

maximum off-site hazard quotient value and where that value occurs. 
Styrene Butadiene Rubb

Latex Production Faci

• Figure 1 - NEI13230; maximum 

acute HQ for styrene of 0.35 to southeast of facility
Figure 1 – NEI13230 Acute Styrene HQ (RE
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certification of CEO/Treasurer

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Southeastern Banking Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Cornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO
of the Company, and Alyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ CORNELIUS P. HOLLAND, IIICornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO/s/ ALYSON G. BEASLEYAlyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer


Date:November 22, 2010
# C_2016089EN.01000102.xml

| 5.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7914 — KKR & Co./Webhelp SAS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 89/02)

On 1 March 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7914. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7914. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3144

_____________________________
A KEEM W ILLIAM D AVID J OHNSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

. May 17, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant was convicted of two counts of resisting an officer without violence after he ran from officers, fell to the ground almost immediately
, and continued to resist while on the ground until he was restrained and loaded into a patrol car. The entire encounter took twenty to thirty seconds. Because this incident amounts to one criminal episode and one criminal act, the dual convictions for resisting an officer without violence are a double jeopardy violation. See R.J.R. v. State , 88 So. 3d 264, 26 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Florida courts have consistently held that a continuous resistance to an ongoing attempt to effectuate a person’s arrest or detainment constitutes only one single instance of resisting an officer.”); Williams v. State , 959 So. 2d 790, 793 (Fla.2 2d DCA 2007) (“When considering the issue of what constitutes a

cr iminal episode in the context of resisting charges, courts have held that a defendant’s continuous resistance to a single ongoing attempt to effectuate his arrest constitutes a single episode of resisting.”). The remedy is to “ reverse and remand for the tr ial court to vacate one of the convictions for resisting arrest without violence. ” See Fogle v. State , 754 So. 2d 878, 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

R EVERSED and R EMANDED

.
R OWE , R AY , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until dispos ition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General
, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06969]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: HOSPIRA

ACTION: Notice of application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the 
issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.34(a) on or before April 27, 2015. Such persons may also file a 
written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 
1301.43 on or before April 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for 
hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: 
Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation 
and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of 
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of 
controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with 
suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion 
Control (``Deputy Assistant Administrator'') pursuant to section 7 of 
28 CFR pt. 0, subpt. R, App.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on 
October 31, 2014, Hospira, 1776 North Centennial Drive, McPherson, 
Kansas 67460-1247, applied to be registered as an importer of 
remifentanil (9739), a basic class of controlled substance listed in 
schedule II.
    The company plans to import remifentanil for use in dosage form 
manufacturing.

    Dated: March 20, 2015.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-06969 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2015280EN.01000102.xml

| 25.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7700 — Apax Partners/RFS Holland Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 280/02)

On 13 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7700. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7700. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7312

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEITHROY NOEL CLARKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:97-cr-00166-RBS)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keithroy Noel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Keithroy Noel Clarke appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for “administrative habeas corpus and petition

for immediate release.” We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v.

Clarke, No. 2:97-cr-00166-RBS (E.D. Va. July 27, 2007). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016007EN.01000205.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/2

---

Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of three Judges

(2016/C 007/06)

At a meeting on 12 October 2015, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Arabadjiev as President of the Sixth Chamber, Ms Toader as President of the Seventh Chamber, Mr Šváby as President of the Eighth Chamber, Mr Lycourgos as President of the Ninth Chamber and Mr Biltgen as President of the Tenth Chamber for the period from 12 October 2015 to 6 October 2016.

---