alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5187]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-74, RM-9011]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Colstrip, MT

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Windy 
Valley Broadcasting proposing the allotment of Channel 229A to 
Colstrip, Montana, as that community's first local service. The 
coordinates for Channel 229A are 45-53-00 and 106-37-36.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 14, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, as follows: Victor A. Michael Jr., President, 
Windy Valley Broadcasting, c/o Magic City Media, 1912 Capitol Avenue, 
Suite 300, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-74, adopted February 14, 
1997, and released February 21, 1997. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, 
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contact.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-5187 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# C_2023179EN.01003902.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-113/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Refusal of the request - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Amicable settlement - Lack of consent - Retroactive promotion decision)

(2023/C 179/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: R. Spáč and A. Ireland, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and L. Lence de Frutos, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 15 June 2021 by which the European External Action Service (EEAS) refused, in part, his request for assistance submitted on 18 February 2021 under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and in accordance with the amicable settlement reached between the parties on 9 February 2021 and the alleged implied decision to promote him to grade AD 14 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2018, as was brought to his attention by his payslip for the month of May 2021, and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage he claims to have suffered as a result of EEAS’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jean-Marc Colombani to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jean-Marc Colombani to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

---
#### COMMONWEALTH v. TEETER, R.

59 CD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/31/2017

Schuylkill County Criminal Division, CP-54-MD-0000799-2015

Reversed
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Mayors Jewelers, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen and thirty-nine weeks ended December
27, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, John D. Ball, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial 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:



|(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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 10, 2004/s/ John D. BallJohn D. Ball
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6122]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-58-002]


East Tennessee Natural Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 3, 1997, East Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company (East Tennessee), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, the revised tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing.
    East Tennessee states that the filing is being filed in compliance 
with the Commission's directives in Orders No. 587 and 587-B, and the 
Commission's January 8, 1997 order in this proceeding. East Tennessee 
proposes an effective date of May 1, 1997 for the revised sheets.
    East Tennessee states that the revised tariff sheets reflect the 
changes to East Tennessee's tariff that result from the Gas Industry 
Standards Board's (``GISB'') consensus standards that were adopted by 
the Commission in Order Nos. 587 and 587-B. The filed tariff sheets 
also reflect the changes required by the January 8, 1997 order to the 
pro forma sheets in East Tennessee's November 1, 1996 GISB compliance 
filing.
    East Tennessee states that copies of the filing have been mailed to 
all affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests must be filed as on or 
before March 21, 1997. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to this proceeding. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in 
the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6122 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-10843.

#### Grantham *v.*Fakhoury, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2023189EN.01002902.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2023 — OD v Eurojust

(Case T-61/22) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Temporary reassignment in the interests of the service - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Provisional distancing measure - Concept of ‘act adversely affecting an official’ - Right to be heard - Liability)

(2023/C 189/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OD (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (represented by: A. Terstegen-Verhaag and M. Castro Granja, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 17 June 2021 by which the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) decided to reassign her temporarily to a [confidential] post, as well as, in so far as necessary, the decision of 21 October 2021 by which Eurojust rejected her complaint of 22 June 2021, and, secondly, compensation for the damage which she claims to have suffered following those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) of 17 June 2021 concerning the temporary reassignment of OD to a [confidential] post; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) of 17 June 2021 concerning the temporary reassignment of OD to a [confidential] post;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Eurojust to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OD. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Eurojust to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OD.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5769]


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

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

NAME OF AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m., April 2, 1997.

PLACE: Conference Room, 1333 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 
20268.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Docket No. MC97-1, Experimental Fees for 
Nonletter-Size Business Reply Mail, 1996.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Margaret P. Crenshaw, Secretary, 
Postal Rate Commission, Suite 300, 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20268-0001, Telephone (202) 789-6840.
Margaret P. Crenshaw,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5769 Filed 3-4-97; 4:56 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose MALDONADO-ZELAYA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50595 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 8, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*425Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Maldonado-Zelaya appeals the 60-month above-guidelines sentence and 3-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He concedes that the issue whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue.

In *Almendarez-Torres,*523 U.S. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of *Alleyne v. United States,*570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013)); *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). Thus, Maldonado-Zelaya’s-argument is foreclosed.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
Submitted November 4,

reversed December 29, 2016

#### In the Matter of E. R., III, a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*E. R., III, *Appellant.*

Yamhill County Circuit Court

16CC00550; A161457

387 P3d 497

Eric J. Deitrick and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

*283PER CURIAM

Appellant’s commitment hearing was held 19 days after he was taken into custody for involuntary treatment, and he seeks reversal of an order committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, ORS 426.130. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case because the commitment hearing was not held within five judicial days after he was taken into custody for involuntary treatment. *See State v. J. N.,*279 Or App 607, 377 P3d 695 (2016) (citing ORS 426.232(2), ORS 426.233(1), and ORS 426.095 (2)(a), in reversing a commitment order because the hearing was held more than five days after the appellant was taken involuntarily into custody for mental health treatment). Although appellant did not preserve his claim of error, he requests that we review it as plain error. ORAP 5.45(1). The state concedes that the failure to dismiss is one of law apparent on the face of the record, and we accept the concession. We also exercise our discretion to correct the plain error because holding appellant eight judicial days longer than what was permissible was a grave error. Consequently, we reverse the commitment order.

Reversed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the use of our report dated February 9, 1995, with respect to 
the financial statements of EET, Inc., not separately presented herein, in 
Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 33-82112) of North 
American Technologies Group, Inc. for the registration of 1,382,071 shares of 
its Common Stock.

                                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Houston, Texas
January 31, 1996
#### Dewey A. Dye, as Administrator *ad litem*of the Estate of L. N. Dolbeck, deceased, v. Estelle Dolbeck.

154 So. 847.

Division A.

Opinion Filed May 15, 1934.

*Dewey A.*Dye, for Appellant;

*Peyton T.*Jordan, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— This was a proceeding by a petition or motion in chancery to vacate a divorce decree after the death of the original complainant, on the ground that a fraud had been perpetrated on the court by complainant with respect to-the jurisdictional allegation and proof required to show that complainant had resided in this State .the period of time specified by Section 4981 C. G. L., 3189 R. G. S., prior to the institution of his suit for divorce from his wife on the ground of desertion.

The attack, on the divorce decree was made by the wife about three months after the divorce decree in the husband’s favor had been entered. In the meantime the death of the husband had occurred. The record shows that Dolbeck filed his suit for divorce on August 12, 1932. Subpoena was personally served on the defendant wife in Hills-borough County on’August 15, 1932. On September 7, 1932, a divorce decree was entered, the wife having allowed a decree *pro confesso*to be taken against her in the meantime. Ten days after obtaining his divorce, Dolbeck, the *867husband, died in Ticonderoga, N. Y. On December 23, 1932, not quite three months later, Mrs. Dolbeck filed her petition to vacate the decree on the ground of her husband’s fraud on the court in making it appear that he was entitled to such a divorce in Florida under our statutes, whereas in truth and in fact he had not been a resident of Florida for a sufficient length of time to give him the right to obtain a divorce on the ground of desertion.

The administrator - of Dolbeck, the deceased husband, took issue on the wife’s petition and denied the fraud on the court. A full hearing was had on the issues and the Chancellor held thereon that the fact of fraud had been sustained and accordingly vacated the decree of divorce. The appeal now before us is from the order vacating the decree of divorce, setting it aside and declaring it null and void.

We are unconvinced that there is no error in the order which is based largely, if not wholly, on conflicting evidence as to the truth of the allegations of the wife’s petition. While a court should only vacate its solemn decrees upon clear and convincing proof of matters *in pais*that are offered as a ground for. setting them, aside on the ground of fraud in their procurement, this Court cannot say that the evidence in the present case does not measure up to the essential requirements of the. law in this particular; so the order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
No. 11-10679.

#### Hager *v.*Michigan.

Ct. App. Mich. Certio-rari denied.
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 Telestone Technologies Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date here of (the Report). I, Han
Daqing, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


By: /s/ Han Daqing
-------------------------------------
Han Daqing
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 15, 2004
Submitted March 3,

reversed and remanded May 10, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*DENNIS LEE HILDE, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Jackson County Circuit Court

15CR08596; A160154

396 P3d 302

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

*499PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his judgment of conviction for two counts of criminal stalking, in violation of ORS 163.732. He challenges the trial court’s failure to enter a judgment of acquittal following his contention during closing arguments1 that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that the letters he sent to his former therapist were communications that a reasonable person could conclude were a “threat of imminent and serious personal violence,” as required by *State v. Rangel,*328 Or 294, 977 P2d 379 (1999). Thus, he argued, the letters were not “repeated, unwanted contacts that reasonably alarm or coerce the victim and that also create reasonable fear for personal safety.” *State v. Ryan,*350 Or 670, 679, 261 P3d 1189 (2011) (briefly stating the crime of stalking). The state concedes that the letters, which were relied upon for both counts, were insufficient under *Rangel*to constitute a contact as required under ORS 163.732. We agree and accept the state’s concession. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.

1

 A defendant may preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by raising that issue during closing argument. *State v. Baranovich,*241 Or App 280, 284, 249 P3d 1284, *rev den,*350 Or 571 (2011).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                       241
<INVENTORY>                                      6,512
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,115
<PP&E>                                          14,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,499
<SALES>                                         10,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,347
<CGS>                                            6,192
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (67)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    25
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,898)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,898)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,898)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)
        


</TABLE>