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

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-1563 (Final)]

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

On March 24, 2022, counsel for petitioners, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association, filed with the Department of Commerce and the Commission a withdrawal of their petition regarding imports of raw honey from Ukraine. Accordingly, the antidumping duty investigation concerning raw honey from Ukraine (Investigation No. 731-TA-1563 (Final)) is terminated.

# DATES:

March 31, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Andres Andrade (202-205-2078), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (                        *https://www.usitc.gov*). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at                         *https://edis.usitc.gov.*

*Authority:*                         This investigation is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 and pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1673c(a)(1)(A) and section 207.40(a) of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.40(a)). This notice is published pursuant to section 201.10 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.10).                    

By order of the Commission.

Issued: April 1, 2022.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2022-07351 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

37 38 39 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
# C_2023164EN.01003402.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/34

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against TP, OF

(Case C-698/22, (1) TP and OF)

(2023/C 164/46)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 30.1.2023.

---
# C_2021357EN.01002701.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/27

---

Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-416/21)

(2021/C 357/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ITINERANT — Application for registration No 17 946 859

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 May 2021 in Case R 997/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25;

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

—

order [EUIPO] to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal;

| — | Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7640
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-00100-BR) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Ellerbe, Ap pellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Edward Ellerbe appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for an arrest warrant and his motion to intervene. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Ellerbe , No. 5:97-cr-00100-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,887,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,350,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,887,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,822,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          244,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,078,000
<COMMON>                                    11,228,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,228,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,822,000
<SALES>                                      1,451,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,451,000
<CGS>                                          553,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,913,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,794,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,288,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,794,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,506,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
#### CLUTTER, S. v. BROWN, A. Appeal of: Gemmell, J.

1542 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

Case No. 68 AD 2014 (Greene)

Affirmed
# C_2022207EN.01001402.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — P.M. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-105/22)

(2022/C 207/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: P.M.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Question referred

Must Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ..., the principle that excise duty is a single-stage tax on actual consumption, and the principle of proportionality be interpreted as precluding the application of a provision of national law such as Article 107(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 6 grudnia 2008 r. o podatku akcyzowym (Law of 6 December 2008 on Excise Duty) ... in so far as it precludes the reimbursement to a taxable person of excise duty upon the export of a registered passenger car, calculated in proportion to the period during which that car was used in the national territory?

---
All data has been removed from this file as a result of CBI sanitization. All data used to determine the

design basis for chemical precipitation storage and reaction tanks is considered CBI or CBI deducible.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5636]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Notice of Decision on 
Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 96-120. Applicant: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268. Instrument: ICP Mass Spectrometer, Model 
PlasmaQuad 3. Manufacturer: Fisons Instruments, United Kingdom. 
Intended Use: See notice at 61 FR 66018, December 16, 1996.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides sensitivities 
to 200 x 106 counts per second per ppm with a detection limit of 
2.0 ng/L for Hg. This capability is pertinent to the applicant's 
intended purposes and we know of no other instrument or apparatus of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being 
manufactured in the United States.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 97-5636 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
<PAGE>
             
                                                                    Exhibit 15.1

                     [LETTERHEAD OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP]


July 8, 1997



Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc.
1200 Smith Street, Suite 1900
Houston, Texas 77002-4312

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries and of
Sterling Chemicals, Inc. for the quarterly periods ended December 31, 1996 and
March 31, 1997, as indicated in our reports dated February 4, 1997 and May 13,
1997, respectively; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information.

We are aware that our reports referred to above, which were included in your
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended December 31, 1996 and
March 31, 1997, are being used in this Registration Statement.

We also are aware that the aforementioned reports, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, are not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
# C_2023261EN.01003201.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND)

(Case T-63/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BROOKS ENGLAND - Earlier EU word mark BROOKS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 261/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brooks England Ltd (Smethwick, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Feltrinelli and K. Manhaeve, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 November 2021 (Case R 2432/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brooks England Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brooks England Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel Fabricio LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel Fabricio Lopez, also known as Loco, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20227 Cons. w/No. 17-20237 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 8, 2018

Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nicole Wignall DeBorde, Esq., Bires, Schaffer *&*DeBorde, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this consolidated appeal, Joel Fabri-cio Lopez challenges the sentences imposed for his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States and the revocation of his supervised release. He asserts that the district court committed reversible plain error by sentencing him in' those cases without ordering a presentence report (PSR).

*422To the extent Lopez contends that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1)(A) required the preparation of a new or additional PSR in his revocation case, he has not demonstrated clear or obvious error. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); *United States v. Pelensky,*129 F.3d 63, 68-69 & n.10 (2d Cir. 1997). Neither has Lopez shown that the absence of a PSR for his new illegal-reentry case affected his substantial rights with respect to that case or his revocation case. The information in the record was sufficient to allow the district court to meaningfully consider the relevant sentencing factors, and Lopez has not shown that the guidelines ranges recognized by the district court for those cases were erroneous. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e)(l)(A)(ii). We decline to exercise our discretion in both cases under the fourth prong of plain error review. *See Puckett,*556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.

AFFIRMED.

*

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QUA VAN LE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73745

Agency No. A027-754-294

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Qua Van Le, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process

claims, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.

FILED

JUN 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73745

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in

part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s denial of Le’s motion to reopen

the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales,

439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006). Le’s claim that the BIA did not issue a decision

that fully explains the reasons for denying his motion to reopen is foreclosed by

this determination. See id. at 603-04. 

Le’s contention that the Board did not consider the evidence he submitted

fails because he has not “overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the

record.” Id. at 603. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                                                   [PETROCORP LOGO APPEARS HERE]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                 PETR-9705

                  PETROCORP COMPLETES GULF COAST ACQUISITION

        HOUSTON (July 16, 1997) - PetroCorp Incorporated (NASDAQ:PETR) today
announced the acquisition of producing oil and gas properties in Louisiana and
Alabama. The adjusted purchase price was $9.1 million as of the July 1, 1997
closing date. Proved reserves acquired in the transaction total approximately
6.0 Bcf of natural gas and 200,000 barrels of oil (1.2 million BOE).

        PetroCorp's net daily production during the first quarter of 1997 was
5,900 BOE/D. Net daily production from the newly acquired properties is
approximately 820 BOE/D (3,700 Mcf of natural gas and 200 barrels of oil).
Almost 75% of this volume is produced from the Miogyp formation in the Riceville
Field in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana in which the company acquired a 13.5%
working interest.

        Funding for the acquisition was provided through a new $50 million
credit facility recently completed by PetroCorp with the Toronto-Dominion Bank
and the Bank of Nova Scotia. Initial borrowing availability under this new
facility was $25 million.

        On an unaudited pro forma basis, as though the transaction had occurred 
at the beginning of 1997, the acquired properties would have increased the 
company's first quarter 1997 revenues by $1.4 million (15%), net income by $0.3 
million (36%), and cash flow by $1.1 million (19%).

        PetroCorp, a Houston-based company, explores, develops and acquires oil 
and gas properties in North America.  The company operates principally in the 
states of Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Kansas and Colorado and in 
the province of Alberta, Canada.


CONTACT:  Craig K. Townsend, Vice President - Finance, (281)875-2500.



                                                    16800 Greenspoint Park Drive
                                                    Suite 300, North Atrium
                                                    Houston, Texas  77060-2391
                                                    (281) 875-2500
# C_2022424EN.01002901.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 August 2022 — Air Europa Lineas Aereas v VO, GR

(Case C-545/22)

(2022/C 424/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Air Europa Lineas Aereas

Respondents: VO, GR

Question referred

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the cancellation of a flight is caused by extraordinary circumstances where, as a result of the collapse of global air traffic from March 2020, following the outbreak of the global Covid-19 pandemic, the airline drastically reduces its flight schedule and cancels numerous flights due to a lack of economically effective capacity utilisation of flights and in order to protect the health of the crew and the pilot, without having been forced to cancel the flight by measures of authorities such as airport closures, flight bans or entry bans?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---