alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-7521.

#### Sereino Joe Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 845,

178 L. Ed. 2d 574,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9675.

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 786.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rogalinski, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4240.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROGALINSKI.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rogalinski, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 

2022-Ohio-4240.]

Attorneys at law—Reciprocal discipline from the Supreme Court of Kentucky—

public reprimand—Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4).

(No. 2022-1327—Submitted October 27, 2022—Decided November 29, 2022.)

ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, No. 22-SC-0144-KB.

__________________

{¶ 1} This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in 

accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(20).

{¶ 2} On October 27, 2022, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed with this 

court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Kentucky entered June 

16, 2022, in Rogalinski v. Kentucky Bar Assn., Case No. 2022-SC-0144-KB, 

imposing a public reprimand upon respondent. On October 31, 2022, this court 

ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should 

not be imposed in this state. No objections were filed, and this cause was 

considered by the court.

{¶ 3} On consideration thereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that 

pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(20)(C), respondent, Clara Elizabeth Rogalinski, Attorney 

Registration No. 0100241, last known business address in Elizabethtown, 

Kentucky, is publicly reprimand, and this entry shall constitute the public 

reprimand. This public reprimand shall be considered as a factor that may justify 

an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed for subsequent misconduct.

{¶ 4} It is further ordered by the court that within 90 days of the date of this 

order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been awarded against 

respondent by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered by the court that if after the date of this order, the 

Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection awards any amount against respondent 

pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the 

Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection within 90 days of the notice of that award.

{¶ 5} It is further ordered that respondent shall keep the clerk and 

disciplinary counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may 

receive communications.

{¶ 6} It is further ordered that service shall be deemed made on respondent 

by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, to respondent’s last known 

address.

{¶ 7} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies 

of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(1) and that publication be 

made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(2).

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART,

and BRUNNER, JJ., concur.

______________________
# C_2014315EN.01003201.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/32

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg — Germany) — Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca v Stadt Kevelaer

(Case C-19/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/51

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Sozialgericht Duisburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca

Applicants:

Defendant: Stadt Kevelaer

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany), made by decision of 17 December 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---
No. 10-7672.

#### Michael Davis, Petitioner v. Louisiana.

562 U.S. 1158, 131 S. Ct. 958,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 384.

178 L. Ed. 2d 790,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, denied.

Same case below, 30 So. 3d 201.
No. 10-6929.

#### Juiquin Anthony Pinkard, Petitioner v. Wisconsin.

562 U.S. 1182, 131 S. Ct. 1001,

178 L. Ed. 2d 834,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 750.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.

Same case below, 327 Wis. 2d 346, 785 N.W.2d 592.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED March 31,
2000.


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                             950
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   950
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      10000
<COMMON>                                          1935
<OTHER-SE>                                      (11385)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       950
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (598)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.001)



</TABLE>
No. 09-10734.

#### Lavell Cotton, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 850, 131 S. Ct. 103,

178 L. Ed. 2d 64,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6298.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 393 Ill. App. 3d 237, 332 Ill. Dec. 646, 913 N.E.2d 578.
# C_2015294EN.01001201.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-231/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Price-fixing - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of the value of sales to which the infringement relates - Internal sales of the goods concerned outside the EEA - Inclusion of sales to third parties in the EEA of finished products incorporating the goods concerned))

(2015/C 294/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders InnoLux Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders InnoLux Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

1

---
### Representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency:

Good morning. I am here today as a member of GreenLatinos representing the diverse Latino community in the United States, who vehemently supports EPA in regulating carbon pollution from new power plants with the strongest possible rules. Carbon 

### pollution has disproportionate negative impacts on our Latino communities, and as the fastest-growing population in this country, Latino voices on this issue must be heard.

My name is Mark Magana and I am the Executive Director of the National Latino Coalition on Climate Change and GreenLatinos — a large coalition of national Latino organizations, grass-roots supporters, community leaders, and advocates from across the nation working to ensure that Latinos have an integral voice in the national dialogue on climate change and energy policy. We are raising awareness about global warming and the impact of climate change in Latino communities and building the capacity needed to support grassroots advocacy efforts through research, policy, and educational outreach.

NLCCC is pleased to be able to present our concerns at this public hearing on the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards to reducing carbon pollution from new power plants.

Our coalition partners are deeply concerned about the continued adverse impacts that harmful pollutants, particularly from coal-fired power plants, are causing on Hispanic and other communities of color. Nearly 40% of Latinoslived within 30 miles of a power plant, an area that is most susceptible to the

negative effects of fine particle soot in the air. As a consequence, Latino communities are disproportionately impacted by the toxic pollutants that are discharged from power plants.

Air pollution from power plants represents an extreme health risk for the Latino community including breathing problems and low birth weight babies with stunted lung growth. The rate of Asthma in these communities is reaching epidemic proportions. The high poverty rate in the Latino community often restricts the housing options of the Latino community and they are often left with no choice but to live in the low-rent less desirable communities that are near power-plants. More than 7 out of 10 Hispanics live in counties that violate federal air pollution standards for one or more pollutants.

It is because Latino and other traditionally under-represented communities are so disproportionately impacted by these harmful pollutants that NLCCC must urge the EPA to adopt the strictest possible carbon pollution standards for new power plant that will adequately protect our communities. In our coalition's view, We must close the Clean Air Act's 40 year loophole for power plants and make them comply with modern emission control standards. These rules are essential to protect the health of our members and necessary to guarantee the safety of the air of Hispanic communities nationwide.
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet 

Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

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

Appendix L.10 

Other Sources Exempted From 

BART Based on BART 

Guidelines and EPA Guidance 

 

 

Appendix L.10 - 1 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

Appendix L.10 - 2 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 3 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 4 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 5 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 6 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 7 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 8 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 9 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 10 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 11 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 12 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 13 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 14 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 15 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 16 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 17 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

Appendix L.10 - 18 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 19 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 20 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 21 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 22 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 23 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 24 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

Appendix L.10 - 25 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 26 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 27 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 28 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 29 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 30 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 31 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 32 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 33 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

Appendix L.10 - 34 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 35 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 36 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 37 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 38 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 39 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

Appendix L.10 - 40 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 41 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 42 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 43 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 44 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 45 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 46 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 47 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 48 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 49 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

Appendix L.10 - 50 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 51 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 52 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 53 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.10 - 54 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
WILLIAM L. OWENS 

21sT DISTRICT, New YORK 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON HOMELAND SECUAITV 

.~ c.: . "€\~~~/{ 

~~~~ 

(!Congre5'5' of tbe ~niteb ~tate5' 

j!}ou%e of l\epre%cntatil:les 

'([mnsbington, 13Q: 20515 

March 25, 20 14 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary, U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

PLEASE RESPOND TO 

WASHINGTON OFFICE 

0 405 CAN"ON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHI,.GTO .... DC 20515 

(202) 225-461 1 

DISTRICT OFFICEo 

D 120 WASHINGTON STREET, Su1TE 200 

WATERTOWN, NY 13601 

(315) 782-3150 

D 14 DuRKH STREET. Sum 320 

PLATTSBURGH, NY 12901 

(518) 563-1406 

0 136 GLEN STREET 

GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 

(518) 743-0964 

I write to express deep concern over the application before your Department by Norwegian Air 

International Limited (NAI) to operate into the U.S. as a foreign air can·ier. Approval of this application 

would not be in the public interest. 

The NAI application proposes a global outsourcing business that will put U.S. airlines and their 

employees at a competitive disadvantage. Indeed, this airline bearing the name "Norwegian" describes 

itself in the application as "a foreign carrier of Ireland." NAI's application provides little information 

about itself or its plans, but it appears to be in the same corporate family with another carrier, a rapidlygrowing low-cost airline, Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS). For one thing, the CEO ofNAI, named in the 

application as Asgeir Nyseth, is the Chief Operating Officer ofNAS. For another, NAI is seeking an 

operating license from Irish aviation authorities, a step that NAS previously signaled it would take. 

NAS has stated that to conduct its new long-haul operations it will seek to register its aircraft and 

receive an air operator's certificate from a European Union country whose labor laws will allow 

outsourcing ofaircrew beyond the EU. NAS/NAI has chosen Ireland and stated that it plans to operate 

this Irish subsidiary-registered aircraft to fly from Norway and other EU points to the United States. 

These flights will be operated by outsourced lower-wage aircrew, based in Southeast Asia, under 

individual employment contracts governed by Singapore law. It is clear that NAS intends to use NAI as 

its Irish affiliate to bring its plan to fruition. 

This business model is designed expressly to undermine fair wages and working conditions. It 

would also put U.S. carriers who have to compete against it at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, 

approval ofNAI's application for authority would be inconsistent with the Congressionally-established 

public interest as set f01th in the aviation statutes and runs afoul of the current EU-U.S. Air Transpo1t 

Agreement. 

I hope you will reject this misguided application and thank you for your consideration of this 

critical matter. 

s 10-140331-014 

BILL OWENS 

Member of Congress 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
(Exhibit 23.1)







                  Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Ennis Business Forms, Inc.:

We  consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements  (Nos. 33-43087, 333-58963, 333-44624, and  333-38100)
on  Form  S-8  of Ennis Business Forms, Inc. of our report  dated
April 12, 2001, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of
Ennis  Business Forms, Inc. and subsidiaries as of  February  28,
2001 and the related consolidated statements of earnings and cash
flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended February
28,  2001,  and  the related financial statement schedule,  which
report appears in the February 28, 2002 annual report on Form 10-
K of Ennis Business Forms, Inc.


                              /s/ KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
May 16, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                     DUQUESNE LIGHT EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Independent Auditors' Consent

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-52782, 33-63602 and 333-72408, and Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement Nos. 33-53563 and 33-53563-01 of Duquesne Light Company
on Form S-3 of our report dated January 29, 2002, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Duquesne Light Company for the year ended December 31,
2001.



/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 27, 2002
1

Schaffner, Karen S.

From: Schaffner, Karen S.

Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 3:35 PM

To: 'Textor, Marise L.'; Bogany, Carolyn

Cc: Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RTR MVL: info for Emission_Unit 01 & 02 (far left dot)

Hi Marise and Carolyn: 

From the lat/long file that TPC sent on Dec 17, it looks like the emission point on the far left of the map page is actually 2 

emission points. As I look on the map, there are no tanks shown; there is a pile, perhaps a storage pile of some sort, and 

trailers for semis. Here is the info from the 2005 NEI: 

Emission_Unit_ID 01; Process_ID 01; Emission_Release_Point_ID 01; and the SCC is 39999999 (Defined as “Industrial 

Processes, Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries, Miscellaneous Industrial Processes, See Comment **”); with Lat 

29.697958 and Long -95.262953. There is one HAP shown as emitted from this point: Styrene at 0.022 tpy. 

Emission_Unit_ID 02; Process_ID 02; Emission_Release_Point_ID 02; and the SCC is 39999999 (Defined as “Industrial 

Processes, Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries, Miscellaneous Industrial Processes, See Comment **”); with Lat 

29.697958 and Long -95.262953. There are two HAP shown as emitted from this point: Chromium at 0.01155 tpy and 

Styrene at 0.0005 tpy. 

Also, there is no MACT code shown for these points (not HON, not Boilers, not MVL). I have assumed that this is not a 

MACT process, so have left as is. Please confirm. 

Let me know if you have any questions. I can check on other things and try to help figure things out if something could 

be better clarified. Thanks, Karen 

Karen Schaffner

Air Quality Engineering Group

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Rd (800 Park, C311)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

phone: (919) 316 3740

fax: (919) 541 7155
No. 10-6999.

#### Dajuan Booker, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1182, 131 S. Ct. 1001,

178 L. Ed. 2d 834,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 852.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 612 F.3d 596.
No. 10-6413.

#### Steven Edward Miller, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 988, 131 S. Ct. 429,

178 L. Ed. 2d 334,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8260.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 807.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17604]


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

CENSUS MONITORING BOARD


Notice of Public Meeting

SUMMARY: This notice, in compliance with Pub. L. 105-119, sets forth 
the meeting date, time and place for the second business meeting of the 
full Census Monitoring Board. The meeting agenda will include an 
examination of ongoing preparations by the Census Bureau for the 2000 
Decennial Census.

DATES: The meeting will take place at 10 a.m. Wednesday, July 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Conference Rooms 3 and 4 of the 
Census Bureau's Conference Center, located in Building 3 at the 
Suitland Federal Center, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact LaVerne Vines Collins, Chief, Public Information Office, Census 
Bureau. Phone: 301-457-3100.
Fred T. Asbell,
Executive Director, Congressionally Appointed Members.
[FR Doc. 98-17604 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1179-00-M
PAGE  

# Toolkit

The purpose of the *Forging Partnerships to Eliminate Tuberculosis Toolkit* is to make it easier for you to implement the tips and strategies provided in the *Forging Partnerships to Eliminate Tuberculosis*guide. The *Toolkit*contains checklists and worksheets designed to help you assess existing assets and barriers to effective partnering, and to use that information to develop and implement more effective TB prevention and control programs. In addition, the *Toolkit* contains sample materials that you can easily adapt for local use. 

*Forging Partnerships to Eliminate TuberculosisPage 1*

*Toolkit*