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

Filed 11/26/13 P. v. Ingram CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHAWN PAUL INGRAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

C072888

(Super. Ct. No. CM036633)

Defendant Shawn Paul Ingram pleaded no contest to orally copulating an 

unconscious person (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (f)) and was sentenced to prison.1 At 

sentencing, defendant was ordered to have no visitation with the victim. (§ 1202.05.)

On appeal, defendant asks that the no-visitation order be stricken because 

section 1202.05 authorizes such orders only when the sex crime victim is a minor. The 

People concede the error, and we agree.

 

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

Section 1202.05, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part: “Whenever a person is 

sentenced to the state prison on or after January 1, 1993, for violating Section . . . 288a,

. . . and the victim . . . is a child under the age of 18 years, the court shall prohibit all 

visitation between the defendant and the child victim.”

Because the victim here was over 18 years old when the crime was committed, 

defendant was not subject to the mandatory provisions of section 1202.05.

DISPOSITION

The section 1202.05 no-visitation order is stricken. In all other respects, the 

judgment is affirmed. The superior court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment 

and forward a certified copy thereof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

 RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

 BUTZ , J.

 HOCH , J.
**Exhibit 31.4**
**Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14 of    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Terry A. Hanson, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Madison Gas and Electric Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e),for the registrant and have:

	a.	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

	b.	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report for conclusions about the effectiveness of the registrant'sdisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation;

	c.	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant's internalcontrol over financial reporting;

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

	a.	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial; and

	b.	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Terry A. Hanson
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary        August 14, 2003
#### Rachael Diana STAPLES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D17-1655

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed August 8, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Original Jurisdiction.

DENIED.
No. 12-6311.

#### Leal-Campos v. United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### State v. Rodriguez

110,604

07/22/2015

Denied

Unpublished
No. 12-6579.

#### Herrera-Delgado *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019419EN.01001501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/15 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9602 — Banco Santander/Allianz Popular)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 419/08)

1.

On 4 December 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019419EN.01001501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Banco Santander, S.A. (‘Banco Santander’, Spain), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Allianz Popular, S.L. (‘Allianz Popular’, Spain), |

Banco Santander acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Allianz Popular.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Santander: mainly active in retail banking, treasury and insurance, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Allianz Popular: Insurance, pension funds and asset management sectors in Spain. It is currently jointly controlled by Banco Santander and Allianz Europe, a subsidiary of Allianz SE (‘Allianz’). |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019419EN.01001501-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9602 — Banco Santander/Allianz Popular

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019419EN.01001501-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019419EN.01001501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
# C_2018447EN.01000602.xml

| 12.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 447/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 447/6

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2018/C 447/11)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 14.11.2018 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 14.11.2018-31.12.2018 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | HAD/5BC6A. |
| Species | Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) |
| Zone | Union and international waters of 5b and 6a |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 45/TQ120 |

Date and time of closure

14.11.2018

Duration

14.11.2018-31.12.2018

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

HAD/5BC6A.

Species

Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)

Zone

Union and international waters of 5b and 6a

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

45/TQ120

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6585
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY JAY BLACKWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock H ill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-319, CA-96-2854-0-6) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.William Otis Kneece, KNEECE, KNEECE & BROWN, Columbia, South Carolina; Steven Jay Wisotsky, Miami, Florida; Robert Arnold Hassell,Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Blackwell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Blackwell , Nos. CR-90- 319; CA-96-2854-0-6 (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 1997). Because Blackwell's claims of ineffective trial and appellate counsel arewithout merit, we find it unnecessary to address whether Blackwell's motion was timely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Finally, we deny Blackwell's motion for oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23306-23307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11246]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-259]


The Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of Denial of Amendment to 
Facility Operating License and Opportunity for Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has denied 
a request by the Tennessee Valley Authority (licensee), for an 
amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-33 issued to the 
licensee for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, 
located in Limestone County, Alabama. Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of this amendment was published in the Federal Register on 
February 15, 1997 (62 FR 2194).
    The purpose of the licensee's amendment request was to revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to permit increasing the main steam 
safety/relief valve set point tolerance to plus or minus 3%.
    The NRC staff has concluded that the licensee's request to increase 
the main steam safety relief valve set point tolerance cannot be 
granted at this time. The licensee was notified of the Commission's 
denial of the proposed change by a letter dated April 22, 1998.
    By May 28, 1998, the licensee may demand a hearing with respect to 
the denial described above. Any person whose interest may be affected 
by this proceeding may file a written petition for leave to intervene.
    A request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services 
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above 
date.
    A copy of any petitions should also be sent to the Office of the 
General

[[Page 23307]]

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and 
to General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill 
Drive, ET 10H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the 
application for amendment dated December 11, 1996, and (2) the 
Commission's letter to the licensee dated April 22, 1998.
    These documents are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at 
the Athens Public Library, 405 E. South Street, Athens, Alabama.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22 day of April 1998.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frederick J. Hebdon,
Director, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-11246 Filed 4-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### Wing v. City of Edwardsville

111,392

07/22/2015

Denied

51 Kan. App. 2d 58
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10509]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 042-1042(b); FRL-5979-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve revisions pertaining to the 
consolidation of Missouri local agency ordinances and codes currently 
contained in the Federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
These revisions were submitted to the EPA on March 20, 1997, to simply 
compliance for certain sources in order to maintain air quality in 
Missouri.
    In the final rules section of the Federal Register, the EPA is 
approving the plan as a direct final rule without prior proposal 
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and 
anticipates no relevant adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the 
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse 
comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no further 
activity is contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives 
relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and 
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting 
on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing on or 
before May 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Joshua A. Tapp, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua A. Tapp at (913) 551-7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule which is located in the final rules section of the Federal 
Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 25, 1998.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 98-10509 Filed 4-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
# C_2019376EN.01002001.xml

| 6.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 376/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 376/20

---

European Fisheries Control Agency

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2018

(2019/C 376/20)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/library

---
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|New York Imputed Wellhead Value of Marketed Production  (Cost)
|                                                              
|                                                              
|New York Imputed Wellhead Value of Marketed Production  (Cost)
|                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |        |        |         |         |         |         |         |         | 44,953 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 55,050  | 48,971 | 52,893 | 50,839  | 48,093  | 42,319  |         | 41,481  | 42,791  | 0      
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0       | 0      | 0      | 208,874 | 321,428 | 429,300 | 399,137 | 486,238 | 449,861 | 188,814
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 166,532 | 0      | 0      | 0       | 0       |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
STRUCTURE ACTIVITY TEAM REPORT 06 December 2002 

CASE NUMBER: P03-0141

RELATED CASES: 

CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSIONS 

TYPE OF CONCERN: HEALTH ECOTOX

LEVEL: 2 1 

KEYWORDS: IRR-E,S,MM,L, NEURO, CARDIO, SYSTEMIC 

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT: 

FATE: 

liquid with mp = - 87 C (M) 

log Kow = 1.3 (ClogP), 1.9 (EPI), 1.59 (M) 

S = 11 g/L at 23 EC (M) 

vp = 33.7 mm Hg or torr at 25 EC (M) 

bp = 106 EC (M) 

H = 4.0E-4 (P) 

log Koc = 1.2 (P) 

log fish BCF = 0.52 (P) 

POTW removal = 17% via sorption and biodegradation 

submitted test data for ready biodegradation were: 

2% in 28 d via OECD301C; 

time for complete ultimate aerobic biodegradation = months 

sorption to soils and sediments = low 

volatilization from rivers = 2 hours and from lakes = 5 days 

atmospheric oxidation half-life = 8.1 hours via OH radical 

PBT Potential: P2B1T2 

*CEB FATE: migration to ground water = rapid 

HEALTH: Absorption good all routes based on analogs; 

submitted test data were: 

rat acute oral LD50 = 630 mg/kg with effects to the brain, CNS effects, and atrophy of the heart; 

moderate eye irritation in rabbits which took 14 d to clear; 

moderate to severe skin irritation in rabbits; 

Ames test was negative; 

E. coli test was negative; 

chromosome aberration test with CHL cells was negative; 

mouse micronucleus test via oral route was negative; 
concern for systemic toxicity based on effects seen in the rat acute oral with effects to the brain 

and atrophy of the heart; 

concern for irritation to all membranes based on submitted test data and solvent properties; 

concern for neurotoxicity based on submitted test data and solvent properties; 

moderate concern for toxicity; 

*CEB HEALTH: Exposures to humans: inhalation, dermal, ingestion, and drinking water; 

ECOTOX: Predicted (P) and measured (M) toxicity values in mg/L (ppm) are: 

fish 96-h LC50 = 350.0 P 

daphnid 48-h LC50 = 360.0 P 

green algal 96-h EC50 = 220.0 P 

fish chronic value = 40.0 P 

daphnid ChV = 13.0 P 

algal ChV = 14.0 P 

Predictions are based on SARs for neutral organic chemicals; SAR chemical class = ; ; log 

Kow = 1.3 (ClogP); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean 

measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; 

low concern for toxicity; 

assessment factor = 10.0 

concern concentration = 1.0 mg/L (ppm) 

*CEB ECOTOX: No releases to water; 

SAT Co-chair: Vince Nabholz, 564.8909
237P16

#### Avery M. Riggsbee v. W. Baine Jones, Jr., Judge Government Employees

1. Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion for Petition for Constitutional Violation

2. Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

1. Dismissed

2. Allowed