alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6168.

#### Darryl Scott Stinski, Petitioner v. Georgia.

562 U.S. 1173, 131 S. Ct. 988,

178 L. Ed. 2d 817,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 239.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 522, 178 L. Ed. 2d 385, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8606.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10670 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUSTIN WYATT LACKEY , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 81

- 8

Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Justin Wyatt Lackey has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lackey h a s not filed a response. We have revi ewed couns el’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 24 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10670 Document: 00512946032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2015No. 14

- 10670

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excu sed from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-10670 Document: 00512946032 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2015
# C_2016106EN.01000401.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — CM Eurologistik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14)

(Joined Cases C-283/14 and C-284/14) (1)

1

((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 - Validity - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Effect to be given to a judgment having found a preceding regulation to be invalid - Reopening of the initial investigation to determine the normal value - Reimposition of the anti-dumping duty on the basis of the same data - Investigation period to be taken into account))

(2016/C 106/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CM Eurologistik GmbH (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) (C-284/14)

Applicants:

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14)

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The consideration of the questions referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Deirdre M. Price, Appellant, v Howard Jenkins, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 454]

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Rademaker, J.), dated June 24, 2015. The order dismissed, without a hearing, the mother’s family offense petition against the father.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the petition, before a different Judge.

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court” *(Mat*
      *954
      *ter of Acevedo v Acevedo,*145 AD3d 773, 774 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *accord Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar,*109 AD3d 473, 474 [2013]). “ ‘[A] family offense petition may be dismissed without a hearing where the petition fails to set forth factual allegations which, if proven, would establish that the respondent has committed a qualifying family offense’ ” *(Matter of Lashlee v Lashlee,*145 AD3d 723, 723-724 [2016], quoting *Matter of Brown-Winfield v Bailey,*143 AD3d 707 [2016]; *see*Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; *Matter of Little v Renz,*90 AD3d 757, 757 [2011]; *Matter of Davis v Venditto,*45 AD3d 837, 837 [2007]). “ ‘In determining whether a petition alleges an enumerated family offense, the petition must be liberally construed, the facts alleged in the petition must be accepted as true, and the petitioner must be granted the benefit of every favorable inference’ ” *(Matter of Brown-Winfield v Bailey,*143 AD3d at 708, quoting *Matter of Arnold v Arnold,*119 AD3d 938, 939 [2014]).

Contrary to the Family Court’s conclusion, construing the petition liberally and giving it the benefit of every favorable inference, the petition adequately alleged that the father had committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree against the mother and the family offenses of obstruction of breathing and assault in the third degree against the parties’ child *(see*Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law §§ 121.11 [a]; 120.00 [1]; 240.26 [3]). Accordingly, the court erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the allegations do not constitute any family offense. In light of certain remarks made by the Family Court Judge during the course of the proceedings, we deem it appropriate that the family offense petition be heard and determined by a different Judge.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# United States Court of Appeals **For the First Circuit**
No. 98-1567 No. 99-1111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v. ANTHONY M. SHEA, Defendant, Appellant.

____________________ No. 98-1568 No. 99-1110 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v. MICHAEL K. O'HALLORAN Defendant, Appellant.

____________________ No. 98-1569 No. 99-2009 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v. PATRICK J. McGONAGLE, Defendant, Appellant.

________________________________________

No. 98-1570 No. 99-1109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v. STEPHEN G. BURKE, Defendant, Appellant.

____________________ No. 98-1767 No. 99-1204 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v. MATTHEW McDONALD, Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

ERRATA The opinion of this Court, issued on May 2, 2000, should be amended as follows: On page 17, line 9 down, insert "thus" between "and" and "failed".
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report, dated January 19, 1998, into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements (as amended, as applicable) File Numbers 33-4041, 33-9570, 33-12119,
33-15680, 33-37827, 33-56762, 33-65123, 33-83402, 333-07413, 333-10919, and
333-10965.


                                                       /S/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

San Diego, California
February 25, 1998
1

CDC Emerging Tobacco Products Communication Initiative

 Teacher Live Action Video – Medium 

Described Audio Transcript (min:sec)

00:00 A male middle school student walks away with his back to the camera, down a hallway 

to class. A female middle school teacher walks behind the student.

A logo in the upper left corner reads Empower Vape-Free Youth.

School class bell begins ringing.

As the student walks down the hall a vape pen falls out of his pocket.

00:01 Closeup shot and sound of vape pen hitting the floor. School class bell stops.

00:03 The teacher glances down and sees the vape pen and we hear the teacher’s inner voice 

as she’s thinking.

00:04 [TEACHER’S INNER VOICE] “Oh no.”

Student picks up vape pen and puts it in his pocket.

00:05 [TEACHER’S INNER VOICE] “Is that a vape?”

00:07 Music begins to play and continues through the end of the video.

Multiple shots of teacher’s face as she walks down the hall composing her thoughts, 

practicing what she wants to say to the student.

00:08 [TEACHER’S INNER VOICE] “Hey, I see some of your friends are vaping. And now you’re 

vaping.”

00:15 Frontal shot of student walking down hall, with teacher behind, gathering her thoughts 

to talk to the student. Focus on the student is slightly blurred while the teacher is in 

sharp focus.

00:15 [TEACHER’S INNER VOICE] “Wouldn’t you be happier if you just don’t vape? And maybe 

take up ... bird watching?”

00:22 We see the teacher’s face, she rolls her eyes, shakes her head and laughs at herself.

00:23 [TEACHER’S INNER VOICE] “Ah, okay, not the most persuasive argument,”

00:26 Closeup of teacher’s face.

00:28 [TEACHER’S INNER VOICE] “He can do this.”

00:30 Frontal shot of student walking down hall, with teacher behind, gathering her thoughts.

[TEACHER’S INNER VOICE] “He knows that it's not safe for him to vape.”
2

00:33 Closeup of teacher’s face.

[TEACHER’S INNER VOICE] “Just needs a nudge from someone he trusts.”

00:36 Frontal shot of teacher speaking to student with his back to the viewer in the hallway 

outside of the door to the classroom. 

00:37 [TEACHER SPEAKING TO STUDENT] “I know you have a lot on your plate right now.”

00:40 Close up of teacher’s face as the teacher speaks to student, back of student’s head 

visible. 

[TEACHER] “Getting addicted to nicotine is the last thing you need.”

00:41 We see the student’s face as the teacher speaks to student. Student looks uneasy.

00:42 [TEACHER] “There are healthy ways.”

00:43 Shot of teacher’s face as she speaks to student.

[TEACHER] “to deal with stress.”

00:45 Teacher talks to student in the hallway.

[TEACHER] “Let’s talk about it.”

00:47 The teacher and student walk into the classroom. Video blurs, text dissolves onto 

screen.

[ANNOUNCER] “Step up for your students.”

Text and logo: Step up for your students. Visit CDC.gov/Vaping for more information. 

CDC logo.

00:49 [ANNOUNCER] “Talk to them about vaping. Visit CDC.gov/Vaping for more information.”

00:54 END.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of First Niles Financial, Inc. (the Registrant) that the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents in all material respects, the consolidated
financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Registrant for such period.



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: June 19, 2006 |  | /s/ William L. Stephens              
|                    |  | William L. Stephens                  
|                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    | 
|Date: June 19, 2006 |  | /s/ Lawrence Safarek                 
|                    |  | Lawrence Safarek                     
|                    |  | Vice President and Treasurer         
|                    |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
# Delivery Totals

# OC AWP

# OO AWP

# WR AWP

# OC B52

# OC B1

# OC C130

# OC E3

# OC E6

# OC KC135

# OC KC10

# OC PMXG

# OC CMXG

# OO Generators

# OO A-10

# OO Landing Gear

# OO Pneudraulics

# OO C-130

# OO F-16

# OO Power Systems

# WR C-130 AMXG Bldg 364

# WR C-130 Carriage Kits (CMXG) 

# WR C-130J

# WR EMXG

# WR C-130

# WR C-5

# WR F-15

# WR C-17
Subject: Previcur Flex Fungicide, EPA Reg. No. 264-678 Data Requirements in Support of Propamocarb Use on Potatoes

Dear Ms. Scheltema:

In the Agency’s Propamocarb Hydrochloride Registration Review Initial Docket dated September, 2011 (Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP- 2011-0662), the following studies were listed as data previously identified by the Agency as needed in support of propamocarb use on

potatoes:

1. GDLN 860.1360 – Multi-residue testing, 2-hydroxy and glucuronide metabolites.

2. GDLN 860.1380 – Storage stability for livestock commodities, glucuronide metabolite.

As per the Docket Summary Document, EPA gr anted a conditional use of propamocarb on potatoes, extended to March 31, 2012. A Storage Stability study of propamocarb glucuronide in animal matrices was previously submitted to the Agency on January 28, 2005 (MRID 46458801). A copy of the Multi-residue testing repo rt is enclosed in response the remaining data requirement listed above. This s hould fulfil the data requirements previously identified as needed in support of propamocarb use on potatoes. Document Processing Desk Office of Pesticide Programs (7502P) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Room S4400

One Potomac Yard 2777 S. Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202

Attention: Christina Scheltema, Registration Review

Division March 29, 20l2

Bayer CropScience

2 T.W. Alexander Drive
P. O. Box 12014 RTP, NC 27709 Phone: (919) 549-2000Page 2 of 2

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at (919) 549-2631 or by e-mail at jessica.fernandez@bayer.com.

Sincerely,

Jessica Fernandez Registration Manager

Cc: Mary Waller, Product Manager (21)
No. 10-7627.

#### Leonardo Franqui, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1188, 131 S. Ct. 1018,

178 L. Ed. 2d 844,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 767.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### *Romney et al., Petitioners, v. Franciscan Med. Grp. et al., Respondents,*

No. 91686-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71625-5-1, February 17, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 728. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
# C_2013352EN.01001001.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

(Case C-533/13)

2013/C 352/18

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry

Applicant:

Defendants: Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (a) | Must Article 4(1) of the Temporary Agency Work Directive 2008/104/EC (1) be interpreted as laying down a permanent obligation on national authorities, including the courts, to ensure by the means available to them that national provisions or clauses in collective agreements contrary to that provision of the directive are not in force or are not applied? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Must Article 4(1) of the Temporary Agency Work Directive 2008/104/EC (1) be interpreted as laying down a permanent obligation on national authorities, including the courts, to ensure by the means available to them that national provisions or clauses in collective agreements contrary to that provision of the directive are not in force or are not applied?

1

| (b) | Must Article 4(1) of the directive be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which the use of temporary agency labour is permitted only in the cases specially listed, such as to cope with peak periods of work or for work which cannot be given to an undertaking’s own employees to do? May the use of agency workers for a lengthy period in the ordinary work of an undertaking alongside the undertaking’s own employees be defined as a prohibited use of agency labour? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Must Article 4(1) of the directive be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which the use of temporary agency labour is permitted only in the cases specially listed, such as to cope with peak periods of work or for work which cannot be given to an undertaking’s own employees to do? May the use of agency workers for a lengthy period in the ordinary work of an undertaking alongside the undertaking’s own employees be defined as a prohibited use of agency labour?

| (c) | If the national provision is found to be contrary to the directive, what methods does a court have for achieving the objectives of the directive where a collective agreement to be observed by individuals is concerned? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If the national provision is found to be contrary to the directive, what methods does a court have for achieving the objectives of the directive where a collective agreement to be observed by individuals is concerned?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work, OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9.

1

---
Order filed, November 28, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00790-CR

____________

JASON ALEXANDER SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 06-DCR-044730A

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 22, 2012. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Elizabeth Wittu, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
No. 10-463.

#### Don Addington, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioners v. US Airline Pilots Association.

562 U.S. 1136, 131 S. Ct. 908,

178 L. Ed. 2d 750,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 550.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 606 F.3d 1174.
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DOCKET ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042

In Re:

EPA’S SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSAL: NESHAP RISK AND TECHNO LOGY REVIEW FOR THE MINERAL WOOL AND WOOL FIBERGLASS INDUSTRIES; NE SHAP FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS AREA SOURCES

COMMENTS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INSULATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

ON BEHALF OF THE WOOL FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURERS

Angus E. Crane (Contact Person) Executive Vice President, General Counsel Christopher C. Martin Granta Y. Nakayama Assistant Legal Counsel Joseph A. Eisert NAIMA Kirkland & Ellis LLP 11 Canal Center Plaza, #103 655 15 th Street, N.W. Alexandria, VA 22314 Washington, D.C. 20005 (703) 684-0084 acrane@naima.org
January 14, 2015
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37131-37132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[OR-050-1020-00: GP8-0239]

Notice of Meeting of John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District.

ACTION: Meeting of John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council: Baker 
City, Oregon; August 13 & 14, 1998.

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

SUMMARY: A meeting of the John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council will 
be held on August 13, 1998 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Forest 
Service--BLM office, 3165 10th Street, Baker City, Oregon. On August 
14, from 7:30 a.m. to 12 noon, the Council will take a field tour of 
Forest Service and BLM land near Baker City. The meeting is open to the 
public. Public comments

[[Page 37132]]

will be received at 1:00 p.m. on August 13. The field tour is open to 
the public, but transportation will not be provided. The August 13 
session will include a briefing on Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management project--subbasin review process, future RAC program of 
work, approval of a subgroup nomination and selection process, Hells 
Canyon NRA subgroup charter and member approval, briefing on listing of 
new fish for threatened and endangered within the RAC area, and an 
update of the John Day River plan subgroup.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James L. Hancock, Bureau of Land 
Management, Prineville District Office, 3050 NE Third Street, P.O. Box 
550, Prineville, Oregon 97754, or call 541-416-6700.

    Dated: June 30, 1998.
James L. Hancock,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-18259 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
```
蚤传斑疹伤寒 | 您需要了解的信息

蚤传斑疹伤寒是由存在于

被感染的跳蚤或其粪便

(也称为跳蚤污垢)中的

细菌引起的。

您可能会在不知情的情况下

接触跳蚤或跳蚤污垢。

宠物可将跳蚤带入您家中

和家周围。

垃圾和食物垃圾可能会将

老鼠和其他害虫吸引到您的

家中。

在您家附近的流浪或野生动物

(例如猫、老鼠或负鼠)上可能

会存在跳蚤。

避免与跳蚤接触:

治疗宠物跳蚤。 户外活动时使用 EPA 注册的

驱虫剂。

让老鼠远离您的家:

密封鼠洞!

诱捕大鼠和小鼠!

清除垃圾!

如果与跳蚤或流浪、

野生动物接触后出现

发烧、身体疼痛、

恶心、呕吐或皮疹,

请咨询医务人员。

发烧 肌肉酸痛 恶心、呕吐或胃痛 皮疹 蚤传斑疹伤寒是可以

治疗的,因此请立即

咨询医务人员!

欲获取更多信息,请访问:

CS310079A MLS311766 -Chinese (S) www.cdc.gov/typhus/murine/
No. 10-5474.

#### Barbara Leone Corbin, Petitioner v. Barbara J. Wheeler, Warden.

562 U.S. 1172, 131 S. Ct. 984,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 84.

178 L. Ed. 2d 812,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 924, 131 S. Ct. 306, 178 L. Ed. 2d 198, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7435.
(Exhibit 23.2)






                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No: 33-43087) pertaining to
the Ennis Business Forms, Inc. 1991 Incentive Stock Option
Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-58963)
pertaining to the Ennis Business Forms, Inc. 1998 Option and
Restricted Stock Plan, and the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 Nos. 333-38100 and 333-44624) pertaining to the Ennis
Business Forms, Inc. 401(k) Plan, of our report dated April
14, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Ennis Business Forms, Inc. and
subsidiaries included in their Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended February 28, 2003 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.




                       /s/  ERNST & YOUNG, LLP


Dallas, Texas
May 16, 2003
No. 10-6090.

#### Kimberly Albright-Lazzari, et vir, Petitioners v. Susan L. Hamilton, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Children and Families.

562 U.S. 998, 131 S. Ct. 516,

178 L. Ed. 2d 365,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8371.

November 1, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari *366to the Appellate Court of Connecticut dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 120 Conn. App. 376, 991 A.2d 696.