alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Submitted January 19;

portion of judgments requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed, otherwise affirmed February 23, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*SHANE CARL CLARK, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Marion County Circuit Court

14C43420, 14C43439; A159255 (Control), A159256

389 P3d 419

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Allen, Judge pro tempore.

*894PER CURIAM

In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s ruling denying him eligibility for early release under ORS 137.750. We reject that assignment of error without written discussion. He also assigns error to the imposition of $853 in court-appointed attorney fees in Case No. 14C43420 and $322 in court-appointed attorney fees in Case No. 14C43439. He points out that, although the judgment of conviction in each case imposed attorney fees, the court explicitly found on the record in each case that defendant had “no ability to pay” the fees. *See*ORS 151.505(3) (“The court may not require a person to pay costs under this section unless the person is or may be able to pay the costs.”); ORS 161.665(4) (“The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.”). The state concedes that imposition of fees in this circumstance is error. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse.

Portion of judgments requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.
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 Beverly Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jonathan Roylance, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350,
as added by ss. 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; and





2.         The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by


the
Report.





April  16,
      2008
              By:
              /s/ Jonathan
      RoylanceJonathan
      RoylancePresident,
      Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
      Director (Principal Executive, Financial, and Accounting
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00489**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 00489\00489_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 00489\00489_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 00489\00489_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

00489\Certification Statement_00489.pdf Plant certification statement 00489\Supplemental Documents\00489_Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00489\Supplemental Documents\00489_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00489\00489_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00489\00489_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
No. D-2665.

#### In re Discipline of House.

Juliette Alane House, of Crestwood, Ky., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 1639

In re: ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR. Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 3:22

- cv - 00019

- GMG

- RWT )

Submitted : September 12, 2022 Decided: September 29, 2022

Before KING, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1639 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus ordering judgment for Hairston in his suit currently pending in district court

. W e conclude that Hairston is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus rel ief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Because Hairston may raise his claims in his currently pending

s uit, t he relief sought by Hairston is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1639 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
No. D-2691.

#### In re Discipline of Gitomer.

Mark Lawrence Gitomer, of Reisterstown, Md., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
# C_2022441EN.01001501.xml

| 21.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/15

---

Appeal brought on 29 August 2022 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2022 in Case T-337/20, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-575/22 P)

(2022/C 441/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (represented by: J. Jennings, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 10 October 2022, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of the European Union decided to dismiss the appeal as inadmissible and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00072-CR

David Kitzmiller

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 158th District Court

of Denton County (F-2013-0272-B)

April 30, 2014

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cristo Rey GUTIERREZ-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10897

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 27, 2018

*359James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Cristo Rey Gutierrez-Garza, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Cristo Rey Gutierrez-Garza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gutierrez-Garza has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5779]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Diabetes and 
Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), April 16-18, 1997, National 
Institutes of Health, Building 5, Room 127, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    In accordance with the provisions set forth in secs. 552b(c)(6), 
Title 5 U.S.C. and sec. 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, the meeting will be 
closed to the public on April 16 from 7:00 p.m. to adjournment on April 
18 for the review, discussion and evaluation of individual intramural 
programs and projects conducted by the NIDDK, including consideration 
of personnel qualifications and performance, the competence of 
individual investigators, and similar items, disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    A summary of the meeting and roster of members will be provided, 
upon request by the Committee Management Office, National Institute of 
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of 
Health, Natcher Building, Room 6AS-37J, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 
594-8892. For any further information, please contact Dr. Allen 
Spiegel, Scientific Review Administrator, Board of Scientific 
Counselors, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 
Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room 9N-222, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 496-4128, at least two weeks prior to 
the meeting date.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.847-849, 
Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases; Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition; and Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, 
National Institutes of Health.)

    Dated: March 4, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-5779 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2022359EN.01004902.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/49

---

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-459/22)

(2022/C 359/58)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by approving and maintaining in force the requirements for pension capital transfer as set out in Articles 19a(1)(d) and 19b(1) and (2) of the Wet op de Loonbelasting 1964 (Law on wages tax); Article 40c of the Uitvoeringsregeling Invorderingswet (Decree implementing the Law on the collection of taxes); Article 10d(3) of the Uitvoeringsbesluit Loonbelasting 1965 (Decision implementing the Law on wages tax), as well as Annex IV to Decision DGB2012/7010M on international aspect of pensions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil the obligations incumbent on that Member State under Articles 45, 56 and 63 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by approving and maintaining in force the requirements for pension capital transfer as set out in Articles 19a(1)(d) and 19b(1) and (2) of the Wet op de Loonbelasting 1964 (Law on wages tax); Article 40c of the Uitvoeringsregeling Invorderingswet (Decree implementing the Law on the collection of taxes); Article 10d(3) of the Uitvoeringsbesluit Loonbelasting 1965 (Decision implementing the Law on wages tax), as well as Annex IV to Decision DGB2012/7010M on international aspect of pensions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil the obligations incumbent on that Member State under Articles 45, 56 and 63 TFEU;

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the view that the Netherlands legislation on the requirements for transfer of pension capital transfers accrued in the so-called ‘second pillar’, the supplementary pension accrual via the employer, is incompatible with the free movement of workers, services and capital. Although those requirements are applicable to domestic and foreign transfers, they are more easily fulfilled by domestic pension providers than for foreign pension providers that wish to provide in their own Member State of establishment pension services to employees working there who have previously accrued pension capital in the Netherlands. In the event of failure to comply with the requirements set by the legislation, the pension capitals accrued in the Netherlands are included in the levy.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT 12/31/97 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,720
<SECURITIES>                                    25,661
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                       931
<INVENTORY>                                     11,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,900
<PP&E>                                          17,244
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,946
<SALES>                                         53,902
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,902
<CGS>                                           37,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,437
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,955)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,392
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,224
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.50
        

</TABLE>
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 922 

Early Voting:8 93 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

508,049 486,844 (95.8% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

485,195 (99.7% of 

returned)

1,649 (0.3% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Conducts all-mail elections in some jurisdictions15

No permanent absentee voting list16

EAVS Jurisdictions

93 

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

1,266,730 

 

Registration Forms Received2*

726,896 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

160,117 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Nebraska

 Voter Registration

0.7%

4.4%

19.5%

31.1%

44.2%

Other

In-Person

Mail, Email, Fax

Online

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

417,349

43.2%

Mail Voters 

485,195

50.2%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

51,537

5.3%

Other Mode 

12,705

1.3%

Voters Participating By Mode5

93 93

0 0 0 0

Ballot

Marking

Device

Scanner DRE w/o

VVPAT

DRE with

VVPAT

Hand

Count

Electronic

Poll

Books

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS.

14 Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout 

69.6%

6
#### Louis SAIA, III, petitioner, v. FLYING J. INC., dba FJ Management, Inc., et al.

No. 17-599.

Jan. 8, 2018.

Case below, 2017 WL 6398013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2022482EN.01000301.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 482/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/3

---

Appeal brought on 17 June 2022 by Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 6 April 2022 in Case T-516/20, Mandelay v EUIPO — Qx World

(Case C-405/22 P)

(2022/C 482/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) (represented by: V. Luszcz, C. Sár and E. Ulviczki, ügyvédek)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 8 November 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Mandelay Kft. should bear its own costs.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 847 

To provide interim appropriations for the Coast Guard Retired Serviceman’s 

Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans for each fiscal year after 

fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2019 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee (for himself, Ms. GABBARD, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. 

CISNEROS, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. DELGADO, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. DUNN, 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N of Puerto Rico, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. 

JONES, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. SEAN

PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Ms. NORTON, Ms. PINGREE, Mr. 

RIGGLEMAN, Mr. RUSH, Ms. SHERRILL, Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. YOUNG, and 

Mr. ZELDIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To provide interim appropriations for the Coast Guard Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2018, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Gold Star 

5 Spouses Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 847 IH

1 SEC. 2. INTERIM APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COAST GUARD 

2 RETIRED SERVICEMAN’S FAMILY PROTEC3 TION AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS PLANS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby appropriated, 

5 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro6 priated, for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2018, such 

7 sums as necessary for payment of the Coast Guard Re8 tired Serviceman’s Family Protection and Survivor Bene9 fits Plans, as are described in the provision regarding 

10 Coast Guard retired pay in title II of division F of the 

11 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115– 

12 141; 132 Stat. 348), at a rate for operations and under 

13 the terms and conditions provided by the most recent law 

14 making full-year appropriations for such Coast Guard Re15 tired Serviceman’s Family Protection and Survivor Bene16 fits Plans. 

17 (b) EFFECT OF ENACTMENT OF SUBSEQUENT AP18 PROPRIATIONS.—If an appropriation for such Coast 

19 Guard Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection and Sur20 vivor Benefits Plans, or a general appropriation bill pro21 viding appropriations for the Coast Guard without provi22 sion for such Coast Guard Retired Serviceman’s Family 

23 Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, is enacted into 

24 law on any date after the date of the enactment of this 

25 Act that provides for appropriations during a fiscal year 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 847 IH

1 following the expenditure of funds during such fiscal year 

2 pursuant to this Act— 

3 (1) such expenditure shall be charged to such 

4 appropriation (if any); and 

5 (2) appropriations made available for such fis6 cal year pursuant to this Act shall not be available 

7 after the date of enactment of such appropriation or 

8 general appropriation bill. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS