alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0361 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0361

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 361/2003 of 27 February 2003 concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002 **

*
Official Journal L 053 , 28/02/2003 P. 0019 - 0019 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 361/2003

of 27 February 2003

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1163/2002(4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1324/2002(5), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002 of 5 September 2002 on a special intervention measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden(6), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2329/2002(7), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002.

(2) According to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002 the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to make no award.

(3) On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 21 to 27 February 2003 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1582/2002.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 February 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 February 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.

(4) OJ L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 46.

(5) OJ L 194, 23.7.2002, p. 26.

(6) OJ L 239, 6.9.2002, p. 3.

(7) OJ L 349, 24.12.2002, p. 17.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 191 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 191

 Condemning all prejudice against Asian and Pacific Islander Americans 
in the United States, and supporting political and civic participation 
             by these persons throughout the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 1997

   Ms. Eshoo (for herself, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. 
    Faleomavaega, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Matsui, and Mr. Underwood) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Condemning all prejudice against Asian and Pacific Islander Americans 
in the United States, and supporting political and civic participation 
             by these persons throughout the United States.

Whereas Congress is investigating possible campaign fundraising violations 
        during 1996 campaigns, which may involve illegal and improper 
        contributions from Asian nations;
Whereas the current media attention regarding this investigation may result in 
        the widespread denigration of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans;
Whereas Asian and Pacific Islander Americans have suffered unfounded and 
        demagogic accusations of disloyalty throughout United States history;
Whereas Asian and Pacific Islander Americans have been victimized by 
        discriminatory laws and actions, including the internment of patriotic 
        and loyal Japanese Americans during the Second World War, the Chinese 
        Exclusion Act, the Alien Land Law, the repatriation of Filipino 
        immigrants, and the prohibition of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans 
        from owning property, voting, testifying in court, or attending school 
        with other people in the United States;
Whereas a 1992 report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights concluded 
        that Asian and Pacific Islander Americans are still frequently victims 
        of racially-motivated bigotry and violence, and face widespread 
        prejudice, discrimination, and barriers to equal opportunity; and
Whereas recent months have seen repeated incidents of violence, harassment, and 
        threats against Asian and Pacific Islander American political candidates 
        and organizations: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress condemns all prejudice against Asian and Pacific Islander 
Americans and publicly supports the participation of Asian and Pacific 
Islander Americans in the political, public, and civic affairs of the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Joseph KELLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4447

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 12, 2017

Decided: December 13, 2017

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B, Cauthen, III, Assistant United ■ States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Joseph Kelley pled guilty without a written plea agreement to possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d) (2012), and was sentenced to 46 months in prison. Kelley appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the sentence is reasonable but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Kelley was advised of his right to .file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.

We first conclude that Kelley’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Kelley stated at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, was 28 years old, had an eleventh-grade education, and understood the nature of the proceedings. He expressed complete satisfaction with his attorney’s services. A factual basis for the plea was presented to the court, Kelley stated that the factual basis was accurate, and he admitted his guilt. Finally, the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11,

With respect to sentencing, the court properly calculated Kelley’s Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. We hold that the within-Guidelines sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Carter,*564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pursuant to *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Kelley’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Kelley, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Kelley requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes *119that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Kelley. 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 the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### DRFP L.L.C., dba Skye Ventures, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REPÚBLICA BOLIVARIANA DE VENEZUELA; The Venezuelan Ministry of Finance, Defendants-appellees.

Case No. 16-3960

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed January 30, 2018

Charles Horne Cooper, Jr., Charles Benjamin Cooper, Rex H. Elliott, Cooper *246& Elliott, Columbus, OH, John C. Camil-lus, Law Offices of John C. Camillus, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Andrew Z. Schwartz, Thomas R. Ayres, II, Richard Grant Baldwin, Matthew Bal-tay, Madeleine Rodriguez, Foley Hoag, Boston, MA, Albert J. Lucas, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Columbus, OH, for Defendants-Appellees

BEFORE: COOK, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

COOK, Circuit Judge.

The parties jointly move to vacate our Order granting appellees’ motion for attorneys’ fees incurred in this frivolous appeal. *See DRFP L.L.C. v. República Bolivariana de Venezuela,*No. 16-3960, — Fed.Appx —, 2018 WL 496861 (6th Cir. Jan. 22, 2018). In light of the parties’ representations that they have reached a comprehensive settlement encompassing this issue, we GRANT the Joint Motion and VACATE our Order of January 22, 2018.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 17, 2022.

# PLACE: 

The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

      ( print page 14307)    

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov.*

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

Resolution of litigation claims; and

Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

Dated: March 10, 2022.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-05473 Filed 3-10-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D19-0827

_____________________________ 

DARON IVY DOWNING, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________ 

Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction. 

August 5, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits. 

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 

Daron Ivy Downing, pro se, Petitioner. 
2 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Powerhouse  Technologies  Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Jay Elliot, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer 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 my knowledge:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.



--------------------
Jay Elliot
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Date:  December 8, 2004
Exhibit 4.1


 


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


November 28, 2017


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 353


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on November 27, 2017, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-220274) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO             


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY McCLELLAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

S. LOZANO; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-17130 

D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01120-AWI-JLT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Gregory McClellan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an excessive force claim. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-17130 

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal as time-barred and 

equitable tolling analysis where relevant facts are undisputed). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed McClellan’s action as time-barred 

because, even with the benefit of statutory tolling, McClellan failed to file his 

action within the applicable statute of limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 

§ 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims), § 352.1(a)

(statutory tolling of up to two years due to imprisonment); Jones, 393 F.3d at 927 

(§ 1983 claims are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal 

injury claims, including state law regarding tolling).

The district court properly concluded that McClellan is not entitled to 

equitable tolling for the period during which (1) he pursued Supplemental Security 

Income with the Social Security Administration or (2) his prior district court action

alleging the same excessive force claim was pending. See Cervantes v. City of San 

Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275-77 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing California’s “definitive 

three-pronged test” for equitable tolling; dismissal despite a claim of equitable 

tolling may be appropriate when it is evident from the face of the complaint that 

the plaintiff could not prevail on the equitable tolling issue as a matter of law

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Martell v. Antelope Valley Hosp. 

Med. Ctr., 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329, 334 (Ct. App. 1998) (equitable tolling does not 

apply to “successive claims pursued in the same forum”).
3 18-17130 

McClellan’s contention, relying on Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226 

(9th Cir. 2015), that the complaint in this action was constructively filed within the 

statute of limitations period is unpersuasive.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
PMN Sanitized file MSDS DSP Acid
Order entered June 19, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00261-CR

No. 05-13-00262-CR

No. 05-13-00263-CR

No. 05-13-00264-CR

MARQUIS OBRIAN WHITE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-56960-U, F12-57100-U, F12-71366-U, F12-71367-U

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On May 13, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On June 17, 2013, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we VACATE the May 13, 2013 order.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
# EUR-Lex - 31998L0015 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998L0015

**Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 amending Council Directive 91/271/EEC with respect to certain requirements established in Annex I thereof (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 067 , 07/03/1998 P. 0029 - 0030 *

COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 amending Council Directive 91/271/EEC with respect to certain requirements established in Annex I thereof (Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (1) and, in particular, Article 5, paragraph 3, thereof,

Whereas the requirements for discharges from urban waste water treatment plants to sensitive areas which are subject to eutrophication as drawn up in Table 2 of Annex I to Directive 91/271/EEC gave rise to problems of interpretation which it is vital to clarify; whereas it is necessary in consequence to amend Table 2 of Annex I to the Directive;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive comply with the opinion of the Committee provided for by Article 18 of Directive 91/271/EEC,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Annex I to Directive 91/271/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.

Article 2

The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive no later than 30 September 1998. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt the measures referred to, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 February 1998.

For the Commission

Ritt BJERREGAARD

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 135, 30. 5. 1991, p. 40.

ANNEX

Table 2 of Annex I to Directive 91/271/EEC is replaced by the following text:

'Table 2: Requirements for discharges from urban waste water treatment plants to sensitive areas which are subject to eutrophication as identified in Annex II.A(a). One or both parameters may be applied depending on the local situation. The values for concentration or for the percentage of reduction shall apply.

>TABLE>
xm-is

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 01-13-00299-CR OFFENSE: 28.02 (Arson)

Robert Earl Schiele v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Polk

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 411th District Court

DATE: 02/19/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 22467

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Robert Earl Schiele v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

?kO SE

CCA#: 7W-IS

Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: OSf/Jf^Q/S'

JUDG E: /V< <^£<^u*-<.

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD