alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Docket Index for

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0269]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

State of California; Legal Authority

Docket Index 

Category/ Item Number

I. Reserved

II. Federal Register Notices

 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972) II-A

 44 FR 38912 (July 3, 1979) II-B

 45 FR 53136 (August 11, 1980) II-C

 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) II-D

 73 FR 9260 (February 20, 2008) II-E

III. Other Relevant Documents

 ARB Letter to Air Pollution Control Officers/Districts, Regarding 

Implementation of Permit Provisions of Senate Bill 700, dated September 3, 

2008

III-A

 Earthjustice Letter to EPA dated January 7, 2008 III-B

 California Attorney General Letter to EPA dated November 3, 2003 III-C

 Senate Bill 700 III-D

 Transmittal Memo, Recommendation and Evaluation Report Concerning 

Chapter 3 (Legal Authority) of Revision to California SIP from Paul De 

Falco, EPA, dated June 25, 1979

III-E

 ARB Transmittal Letter for Chapter 3 (Legal Authority) of Revision to 

California SIP, dated March 16, 1979

III-F

 Chapter 3 (Legal Authority), Revision to California SIP, December 1978 III-G

 Chapter 2 (Statewide Perspective), Revision to California SIP, October 1978 III-H

 Chapter 1 (Introduction), SIP-78 Working Document, April 1978 III-I

 Foreword to the State of California’s 1979 SIP Amendments in Response to 

the CAA Amendments of 1977, July 1979

III-J

 Excerpt from 40 CFR part 51, subpart B (“Plan content and requirements”) 

(1977)

III-K
2

 Governor’s Letter to EPA transmitting 1972 California SIP, dated February

21, 1972

III-L

 California SIP, dated January 30, 1972, cover page and table of contents III-M

 Chapter 7 (Legal Considerations), 1972 California SIP III-N

 Appendix II (State Statutes and Other Legal Documents Pertinent to Air 

Pollution Control in California), 1972 California SIP

III-O

 Excerpt from 40 CFR part 51, subpart B (“Plan content and requirements”) 

(1972)

III-P

 Excerpts from Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 III-Q

IV. EPA Rulemaking Documents

 Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Pre-publication Version IV-A

 75 FR 4742 (January 29, 2010) IV-B

 Federal Register Notice of Final Rulemaking, Pre-publication Version IV-C

V. Comment Letters on Proposed Action

 San Joaquin Valley APCD, Comment Letter, February 24, 2010 V-A

 Paul Cort, Earthjustice, Comment Letter, March 1, 2010 V-B

 Brent Newell, CRP&E, Comment Letter, March 1, 2010 V-C

 Greenberg-Glusker, Comment Letter, March 1, 2010 V-D

VI. Supplemental Materials for Final Rule

 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997) VI-A

 72 FR 64158 (November 15, 2007) VI-B
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 3, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00834

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.H., A CHILD,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 2 0578 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due April 24, 2019. On that day, appellant filed a motion for extension of time, seeking an additional fourteen days to file his brief. After consideration, we

GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant to file his brief in this court on or before May 8, 2019

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of May, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
June 20, 2012

No. 11A1224.

#### Simmons *v.*Mississippi.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
# C_2021217EN.01005902.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/59

---

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X)

(Case T-198/21)

(2021/C 217/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ancor Group GmbH (Igersheim, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth and W. Berlit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cody’s Drinks International GmbH (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU work mark CODE-X — Application for registration No 17 893 826

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2021 in Case R 208/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 November 2018 rejecting the opposition brought against EU trade mark application No 17 893 826; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 November 2018 rejecting the opposition brought against EU trade mark application No 17 893 826;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                      CONSENT OF T.J. SMITH & COMPANY, INC.

     We hereby consent to the use of our report dated February 17, 2003
regarding Torch Energy Royalty Trust and to the reference to our firm included
in this Form 10-K.

                                            T.J. SMITH & COMPANY, INC.


                                            By:  /s/ T. J. Smith
                                                 -----------------
                                                 T. J. Smith


Houston, Texas
March 27, 2003
# C_2021297EN.01005301.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/53

---

Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Scania CV v EUIPO (V8)

(Case T-327/21)

(2021/C 297/64)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Scania CV AB (Södertälje, Sweden) (represented by: C. Langenius, P. Sundin and S. Falkner)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU figurative mark V8 — Application for registration No 18 120 085

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 1868/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | in accordance with Article 72 EUTMR, annul the contested decision and, amending EUIPO’s decision; grant Scania’s application for registration of the figurative mark for all the goods and services for which EUIPO refused registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

in accordance with Article 72 EUTMR, annul the contested decision and, amending EUIPO’s decision; grant Scania’s application for registration of the figurative mark for all the goods and services for which EUIPO refused registration;

| — | in accordance with Article 72 EUTMR, annul the contested decision and refer the matter back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal for a fresh decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in accordance with Article 72 EUTMR, annul the contested decision and refer the matter back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal for a fresh decision;

| — | in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Agenda

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Standards Board 2024 Annual Meeting

Fontaine Hotel

Kansas City, Missouri

April 17-18

Wednesday, April 17

8:00-9:00am Registration

9:00-9:40am Call to Order

Pledge of Allegiance

Welcome

Proxy Committee Report

Roll Call; Determination of Quorum

Oath of Office

Introductory Business

Executive Board Vacancy

9:40-10:15am Committee Updates

10:15-10:40am Break

10:40-11:15am Elections in the Territories

11:15-11:30am Artificial Intelligence and Elections

11:30-1:00pm Lunch

1:00-1:45pm Communications – Voter Education Project Findings and EAC Tools

1:45-2:30pm Lessons from Presidential Primaries

2:30-2:45pm Break

2:45-3:30pm 2024 General Election

3:30-4:15pm Standards Board Priorities Discussion

4:15-4:30pm Announcements 

Recess until [next day]

Thursday, April 18

9:00-9:15am Meeting Reconvenes with Board of Advisors

FACA Responsibilities and Role of the Board under HAVA
9:15-9:35am EAC Agency Updates

9:35-10:05am EAC Agency Updates and Discussion

10:05-10:25am Break

10:25-11:40am EAC Program Updates and Discussion

11:40-11:45am Closing Discussion/Announcements

Meeting Adjourned
Submitted December 21, 2016;

remanded for entry of a corrected judgment deleting all references to the “constituting domestic violence” element, portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed, otherwise affirmed January 25, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*JAMES FRANKLIN NEIGHBORS, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Polk County Circuit Court

13P3108; A158111

388 P3d 1250

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jordan R. Silk, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*489PER CURIAM

In this criminal case, the trial court entered a judgment convicting defendant of first-degree criminal mistreatment “constituting domestic violence.” *See*ORS 132.586.1 The court sentenced defendant to 48 months in prison and ordered him to pay $510 in court-appointed attorney fees. Defendant appeals, challenging the court’s designation of the crime as a crime “constituting domestic violence” and the court’s imposition of attorney fees.2

The state concedes that the “trial court’s insertion of the phrase ‘constituting domestic violence’ in Count 1 of the judgment of conviction appears to be a clerical error,” noting that “the record appears to reflect a stipulation not to pursue [the domestic violence] element.” We agree with the state’s assessment and remand for entry of a corrected judgment that deletes all references to the “constituting domestic violence” element from the judgment of conviction.

The state also concedes that the trial court plainly erred by imposing the court-appointed attorney fees and that we should exercise our discretion to correct that error. We accept the state’s concession and, for reasons similar to those expressed in *State v. Baker,*278 Or App 327, 328, 372 P3d 656 (2016), exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Remanded for entry of a corrected judgment deleting all references to the “constituting domestic violence” element; portion of the judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

1

 ORS 132.568 provides, in part:

> “(2) When a crime involves domestic violence, the accusatory instrument may plead, and the prosecution may prove at trial, domestic violence as an element of the crime. When a crime is so pleaded, the words ‘constituting domestic violence’ may be added to the title of the crime.”

2

 Defendant also challenges an evidentiary ruling by the court and its imposition of an upward departure sentence. We reject those challenges without written discussion.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAYNECIA FLOYD
, Appellant,

v.

S HARNELL LORANDA LOUIS
, Appellee.

No. 4D 2023

- 126 5

[ April 3, 2024 ]

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Stefanie C. Moon

, Judge; L.T. Case No. DV CE 23

- 0034 21

.

Jaynecia Floyd

, North Lauderdale

, pro se

.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

C ONNER

, K UNTZ and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Improving Achievement

- The Biden-Harris Administration Announces Technical Assistance Centers to Accelerate Learning and Support Student Wellbeing The U.S. Department of Education (Department) today announced technical assistance centers to support state and local efforts to support and enhance student wellbeing, academic success, and school safety.
Exhibit 32.1


            Certification of Chief Executive and Financial Officer of
               Monument Resources, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


     I, A.G. Foust, certify that:

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Monument
Resources, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
A.G. Foust, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                            By:  /s/  A.G. Foust
                                               --------------------------------
                                            Name:     A.G. Foust
                                            Title:    Chief Executive and
                                                      Financial Officer

                                            Date:     August 12, 2003
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

# **CertificationPursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63**

**of Title18 of the United States Code**

 

 

I, John R. Murphy, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Accuride Corporation, certify that to my knowledge, (i) theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for said period fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Accuride Corporation.

 
| /s/ John R. Murphy                    |   | Dated: November 2, 2007 |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| John R. Murphy                        |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                  |   |

 

 

I, David K. Armstrong, Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel ofAccuride Corporation, certify that to my knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and (ii) the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forsaid period fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Accuride Corporation.

 
| /s/ David K. Armstrong                      |   | Dated: November 2, 2007 |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| David K. Armstrong                          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel |   |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50463

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ANGEL VARGAS-VILLA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-97-CR-3

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1997

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Angel Vargas-Villa appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and sentence for reentry after deportation in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Vargas-Villa has filed a motion to stay his

appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.

Almendarez-Torres, 113 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. granted,

117 S. Ct. 1333 (1997). Vargas-Villa’s motion to stay his appeal

is DENIED.
No. 97-50463 

-2-

Vargas-Villa argues that he was charged with and pleaded

guilty to simple reentry under § 1326(a) and that he could not be

sentenced under § 1326(b) because the indictment did not allege

that he had a prior aggravated felony conviction. His argument

is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v.

Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F.2d 943, 946-47 (5th Cir. 1993).

MOTION DENIED. AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6408

TYRESE D. HYLES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MR. BRECKON, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00192-NKM-JCH)

Submitted: October 30, 2020 Decided: November 19, 2020

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrese D. Hyles, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Anne Rumsey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrese D. Hyles, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his

convictions and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to 

§ 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction or sentence in a traditional writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to 

test the legality of his detention.

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence

when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme 

Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s 

direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive 

law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; 

(3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) 

for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the 

sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental 

defect.

United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). 

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction

when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme 

Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the 

prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed 

such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to 

be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of 

§ 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). 

We have reviewed the record and find that Hyles’ claims meet neither the Wheeler 

test nor the Jones test. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Hyles v. Breckon, No. 7:19-cv-00192-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2020). We deny 

Hyles’ motion to expedite as moot and dispense with oral argument because the facts and 
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                 5276                    5276
<RECEIVABLES>                        280283                  280283
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                       0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                 11176                   11176
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                    3069                    3069
<PP&E>                                 3569                    3569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       350683                  350683
<SHORT-TERM>                           1098                    1098
<PAYABLES>                           245008                  245008
<REPOS-SOLD>                              0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                   78607                   78607
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                      704                     704
<LONG-TERM>                           10539                   10539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<COMMON>                                141                     141
<OTHER-SE>                            14586                   14586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         350683                  350683
<TRADING-REVENUE>                      2937                    1134
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                  11333                    5926
<COMMISSIONS>                         13303                    7058
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>             0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                           274                      14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     7058                    3608
<COMPENSATION>                         4655                    2309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (1206)                  (1067)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>            (1206)                  (1067)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                         (2,926)                 (2,840)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.21)                  (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.21)                  (0.20)
        

</TABLE>