alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2010044EN.01000901.xml

| 19.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 44/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 44/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 139/2010

of 18 February 2010

granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 16 February 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 16 February 2010.

| (3) | The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 16 February 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 February 2010.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2010.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.

3

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 20, 2015

No. 04-15-00499-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF LOUIS S. BERNAL, deceased,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-PC-0983

Honorable Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellee’s brief is due on November 16, 2015. No further extension will be allowed.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 10-5110.

#### David Wright, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 904, 131 S. Ct. 242,

178 L. Ed. 2d 162,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6377.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 347.
No. 10-6573.

#### Teofilo Rodriguez Valencia, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 991, 131 S. Ct. 439,

178 L. Ed. 2d 340,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8215.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 419.
#### In the Matter of Nelson Suero, Appellant, v Touro College et al., Respondents.

[66 NYS3d 431]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered August 22, 2016, inter alia, compelling arbitration of the parties’ dispute, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The special referee properly exercised his discretion in declining to recuse himself on the ground of a conflict of interest *(see Orr v Yun,*95 AD3d 661 [1st Dept 2012]). We find that his impartiality may not “reasonably” be questioned *(see*22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1]) on the basis of his having been an adjunct professor at respondent Touro College’s law school for *479“a couple of semesters,” more than 15 years before the hearing in this proceeding against respondent Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine.

Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that his share of the cost of arbitration was prohibitively high *(see Matter of Brady v Williams Capital Group, L.P.,*14 NY3d 459, 462 [2010]). He did not sufficiently establish the likely cost of arbitration or the differential between arbitration and litigation costs. Even accepting counsel’s conclusory estimate of those costs, petitioner did not show that he would be unable to afford them.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Tom, Kapnick and Oing, JJ.
& 

0 

&. 

: 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

We am in rot 

olorlng oopy at a bill 

Itoqalar SW~icLl vr MB. 

labor to bo oatgloyed 

by thbo State ‘Wring 

to wdv1ee 

r8peial 

t1on or 7 t e 

ed e aubatituter bill, rhlah 

merely suspender the Lnhe use of prison labcvr en 

& faram for the duration of the 

ber of addlQiona1 .m-mthm ata you may 

oars to de.8 h ou? draft of suoh eubotltuts blll 

the nunbeT of aieatho ahonld be fillad 

XC was our thcm?bt th?lt ret- 

&1 eaer,2ancy R n.l.f&t laaff to a.siblguity. 

You alGo lnqufre rrhathsrr thz Le~iolatsra~ has tks fiweb 

to 8usF~d a law. 'ingureti~nrbly, the Le$irhtura, end the 

I.eeleleturc only, dose hers at&h F wer , l o loavg am the ouspaaricn or ~ttcb. rtaiuta doas sot tmntratme any provislen of the 

Stats GT Federal Constitationt.
No. 85-6516.

#### Savage *v.*Ohio.

Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.
MWR connecting the local Richmond business community with the workforce
 
  By Leon Moore, Acting Chief of Public Affairs
  Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond’s Morale, Welfare, and Recreation hosted an Information Expo Mar. 22, in the dining area on the first floor of the DLA Aviation Operations Center (Bldg. 46) on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Representatives were on hand from local financial institutions, insurance providers, healthcare companies, realtors, and local attractions. Katherine Brixen is the marketing manager for DLA Installation Management’s Morale, Welfare and Recreation. Brixen said the expo was well received. She estimates more than 200 people attended, compared to a similar one held back in November 2022 where only roughly 50 people attended. “It was an opportunity for the people who sponsor our programs and events to get some facetime with the DLA Aviation community and vice versa,” said Brixen.
No. 10-6142.

#### Lionel Dewayne Gilliam, aka Lionel Dewayne Gillium, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 370,

178 L. Ed. 2d 240,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7772.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 349.
# C_2013304EN.01000701.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

(Case C-446/13)

2013/C 304/12

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Fonderie 2A

Appellant:

Respondent: Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the provisions of the Sixth Directive [77/388/EEC] (1) for defining the place of an intra-Community supply mean that the supply of goods by a company to a customer in another country of the European Union, after the goods have, on the vendor’s behalf, undergone processing at the place of business of another company in the country of the customer is a supply between the country of the vendor and the country of the final recipient or a supply within the territory of the country of the final recipient, from the place of business of the processor?

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
#### In the Matter of Andrew Fesler, Appellant, v William J. Bratton et al., Respondents.

[68 NYS3d 407]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered October 26, 2015, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination, dated February 12, 2014, which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits pursuant to the World Trade Center Law (WTC Law) (Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252.1 [1] [a]), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

If any condition or impairment of health is caused by a qualifying World Trade Center condition (Retirement and Social Security Law § 2 [36] [c]), “it shall be presumptive evidence that it was incurred in the performance and discharge of duty and the natural and proximate result of an accident not caused by [the] member’s own willful negligence, unless the contrary [is] proved by competent evidence” (Administrative Code § 13-252.1 [1] [a]). The significance of the presumption under the WTC Law is that first responders need not submit any evidence, credible or otherwise, of causation, to obtain enhanced benefits, if they have a qualifying condition *(see Matter of Bitchatchi v Board of Trustees of the N.Y. City Police Dept. Pension Fund, Art. II,*20 NY3d 268, 281-282 [2012]; *Matter of Sheldon v Kelly,*126 AD3d 138, 142 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 908 [2015]). However, in order to obtain the *535benefit of the presumption of causation under the WTC Law, petitioner must suffer from a qualifying condition, and the burden is on petitioner to make that showing *(see Matter of Stavropoulos v Bratton,*148 AD3d 449, 452-453 [1st Dept 2017]).

Here, the court correctly concluded that petitioner failed to present sufficient credible evidence that his Crohn’s disease was a qualifying condition or “new onset disease[ ]” (Retirement and Social Security Law § 2 [36] [c] [v]). His doctor opined only that it was “conceivable” that there was a link between his illness and exposure to toxins at the WTC site, and the articles he provided were not relevant. Respondents were entitled to rely on the Medical Board’s conclusion that the medical literature did not provide evidence of such a causative link, and the medical data showed that first responders did not have a higher incidence of these conditions.

Because the burden never shifted to respondents, petitioner was required to demonstrate a causative link between his illness and exposure to toxins at the World Trade Center site, which he failed to do *(see Stavropoulos*at 454-455).

Concur— Friedman, J.R, Kahn, Gesmer, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
No. 10-234.

#### Ravi Vaidyanathan, Petitioner v. David J. Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, Patent and Trademark Office.

562 U.S. 898, 131 S. Ct. 359,

178 L. Ed. 2d 150,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6189.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 985.
# DLA Energy empowers service member through Operation Warfighter Program

/ Published Aug. 12, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, *This is the second article in a series of DLA Energy workforce development opportunities.*
No. 10M39.

#### Keith Dunkley, Petitioner v. Mellon Investor Services, et al.

562 U.S. 979, 131 S. Ct. 442,

178 L. Ed. 2d 320,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8302.

October 18, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 10-6232.

#### Paul E. Smith, Jr., Petitioner v. Kalleah Konteh, Warden.

562 U.S. 972, 131 S. Ct. 486,

178 L. Ed. 2d 307,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7985.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# Plan ahead for a safe solar eclipse on April 8

/ Published March 29, 2024
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
On April 8, a total solar eclipse will cross North America, passing over Mexico, the United States and Canada. A 124-mile-wide band in Ohio will experience a total solar eclipse. Areas in Ohio that are outside the path of totality, including Franklin County, will experience a partial eclipse. The path is due to cross Ohio beginning at approximately 3:08 p.m. eastern daylight time, with the final exit of the moon’s shadow at 3:19 p.m.

Safety is the number one priority when viewing a total solar eclipse. It's never safe to look directly at the sun's rays, even if the sun is partially obscured, as this can result in severe eye injury. The only safe way to look directly at a partially eclipsed sun is through special-purpose solar filters, such as eclipse glasses or hand-held solar viewers. Be sure you're familiar with solar eclipse safety tips.

**What you should know about Eclipse Planning:**
      - Make a family emergency plan and include pets.
      - Have emergency supplies in place at home, at work and in the car.
      - Your travel plans should include before, during and after the event.
      - Get your information from reliable sources.
      - Know where you will get accurate and timely information, notifications and alerts.
      - The OHGO app provides real-time traffic updates in Ohio so you can get the information you need when traveling.

**Interesting Facts from NASA:**
      - After the total solar eclipse on April 8, the next total solar eclipse that can be seen from the contiguous United States will be on Aug. 23, 2044.
      - The last total solar eclipse visible in Ohio was in 1806. The next total solar eclipse in Ohio will be in the year 2099.
      - We can’t normally see the corona ­– the sun’s outer atmosphere – because the sun’s surface below it is so much brighter. But during a total solar eclipse, the corona becomes visible, offering unique opportunities to study it.
      - When a solar eclipse reaches totality, nocturnal wildlife sometimes wakes up, thinking that it’s nighttime, and non-nocturnal wildlife might think it’s time to head to sleep.

More information on the Ohio path of the solar eclipse can be found here: https://ema.ohio.gov/media-publications/ohio-total-solar-eclipse
No. 09-11424.

#### Sabrina D. Davis, Petitioner v. Kia Motors America, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 879, 131 S. Ct. 196,

178 L. Ed. 2d 118,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6998,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 408.
No. 10-6095.

#### Michael Harris, Petitioner v. Arizona.

562 U.S. 970, 131 S. Ct. 480,

178 L. Ed. 2d 304,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8098.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, denied.

Same case below, 223 Ariz. 222, 221 P.3d 1036.
Texas firefighters use fleet addition from DLA to control wildfire
 By Jeff Landenberger
  The Marlin Volunteer Fire Department was recently called out to what became the 96-acre Rice Road Fire. Its new military truck acquired from Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services was instrumental in helping the department fight a six-hour battle alongside other area fire departments and Texas A&M Forest Service. **A former military truck repurposed into a firetruck by Texas’ Marlin Volunteer Fire Department. The department took advantage of DOD’s Firefighter Property Program that puts used military equipment into the hands of fire departments.




A former military truck displays its new ability to spray water during a demonstration in a parking lot where it sprayed water.
        Converted military truck
            A former military truck repurposed into a firetruck by Texas’ Marlin Volunteer Fire Department. The department took advantage of DOD’s Firefighter Property Program that puts used military equipment into the hands of fire departments.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: Marlin Volunteer Fire Department
                    
                    VIRIN: 210915-D-DO441-567**“The Stewart Stevenson did very well in helping to knock down the fire at a time when low humidity and windy conditions were against us,” Marlin VFD Assistant Fire Chief Mike Bethke said of the truck from DLA. “We were very pleased to have this rugged truck with its new slip-on unit that can carry a large volume of water.” The excess military Stewart Stevenson was attained through DOD’s Firefighter Property Program. A partnership between DLA Disposition Services and the U.S. Forest Service places used military equipment into the hands of fire departments. Fire Chief James Adams painted the truck a non-military color and Assistant Fire Chief Bethke detailed it out with the departmental logo, fulfilling their obligation to repaint it. “This converted military truck will be a great asset to Marlin VFD, helping to increase their firefighting capabilities and giving them a new advantage when responding to wildland fires,” said Texas A&M Forest Service Regional Fire Coordinator Matthew Schlaefer.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3758

_____________________________

MARK WILLIAM HAMMAC,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge.

May 1, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2023).

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Navatro LeGrand, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 905]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), dated April 29, 2015, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C), the People have “the burden of proving the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *see People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 117-118 [2011]). “In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant’s admissions, the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board ... or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay” *(People v Crandall,*90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; *see People v Mingo,*12 NY3d 563, 573 [2009]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006] [hereinafter SORA Guidelines]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 3, based upon two victims (see SORA Guidelines at 10; *People v Madera,*100 AD3d 1111 [2012]; *People v Kruger,*88 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2011]), and 20 points under risk factor 13 for unsatisfactory conduct with sexual misconduct while confined (see SORA Guidelines at 16-17; *People v Bush,*105 AD3d 1179, 1180-1181 [2013]; *People v Crandall,*90 AD3d at 630; *People v Mabee,*69 AD3d 820, 820-821 [2010]; *People v Ealy,*55 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit (see *People v Noble,*146 AD3d 824 [2017]; *People v Benitez,*140 AD3d 1140 [2016]; *People v Angelo,*3 AD3d 482 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.