alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016339EN.01000702.xml

| 16.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/7

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2016/C 339/10)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community 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:

1

| Date and time of closure | 20.8.2016 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 20.8.2016 - 31.12.2016 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or Group of stocks | SRX/89-C. |
| Species | Skates and rays (rajiformes) |
| Zone | Union waters of VIII and IX |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 24/TQ72 |

Date and time of closure

20.8.2016

Duration

20.8.2016 - 31.12.2016

Member State

Belgium

Stock or Group of stocks

SRX/89-C.

Species

Skates and rays (rajiformes)

rajiformes

Zone

Union waters of VIII and IX

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

24/TQ72

---

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

1

---
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $15.58 CWT 0.965 $15.0347

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.2356 LB 3.5 $7.8246

Class I Price $22.8593

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $17.45 CWT 0.965 $16.8393

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.1790 LB 3.5 $7.6265

Class I Price $24.4658

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT ($1.6065)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.1381)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.0691)

Price change per quart ($0.0345)

Price change per pint ($0.0173)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.0124)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.0104)

Price change per half pint ($0.0086)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon ($0.14)

Price adjustment per half gallon ($0.07)

Price adjustment per quart ($0.03)

Price adjustment per pint ($0.02)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.01)

Price adjustment per half pint ($0.01)

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: June 1, 2014
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MADEL JULIEN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3720

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 9, 2018. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Collier County; Frederick R. Hardt, Judge.

Madel Julien, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### Chyatte v. Kirkegard

2016 MT 273N

DA 16-0069

10/25/16

Affirmed

Dist. 1 (Lewis and Clark)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

129760 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MARK C. NALEPKA and KIMBERLY P. Stephen J. Markman, NALEPKA, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 129760 COA: 262000 Wayne CC: 03-340600-CK JAMES HNATIO and WALDA HNATIO, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

# ACTION:

Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the next meeting of the National Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Advisory Board.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 1 p.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

This meeting will be held via conference call.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board:

—Board Wrap-Up of ASBDC Spring Meeting.

—SBA Update.

—Member Roundtable.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The meeting is open to the public; however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to be a listening participant must contact Alanna Falcone by Friday, March 13, 2009, by fax or e-mail in order to be placed on the agenda. Alanna Falcone, Program Analyst, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone, 202-619-1612, Fax 202-481-0134, e-mail,                         *alanna.falcone@sba.gov*.                    

Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Alanna Falcone at the information above.

Bridget E. Bean,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-4113 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Montana Twelfth Judicial District Court. County of Hill.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- MAVIS LYNN COCHRAN, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-12-086

Done in open Court this 8th day of April, 2016.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2016.

DECISION

On August 10,2015, the Court revoked the Defendant’s suspended sentence for Count I: Theft, a felony, Count II: Driving under the Influence of Alcohol, 4th or subsequent offense, a felony; and Count III: Driving while Privilege to do so is Suspended/Revoked, a misdemeanor. The Court sentenced the Defendant to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for five (5) years, with a recommendation for placement in a treatment program such as Passages followed by pre-release. The Defendant was given credit for 114 days served and credit for 30 days street time at the Crystal Creek program. The Defendant was ordered to pay all previously imposed financial obligations by the sentencing court in the original Judgment entered August 12, 2013.

On April 8, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by video conferencing from the Butte Pre-Release program and was represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. Brad Newman, Member.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          77,382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                       293
<INVENTORY>                                      1,802
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,327
<PP&E>                                           4,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,640
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,558
<SALES>                                         12,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,319
<CGS>                                            2,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,701
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,552
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,330
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24


</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00134-CV

Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de C.V.

v.

Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company

On appeal from the

319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 07-5899-G

JUDGMENT

This Court’s judgment issued on December 19, 2019, is hereby withdrawn and 

the following is substituted therefor.

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant, Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de C.V. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 30, 2020
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1794
LISA MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-14-A) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lisa Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Ardra Monique O’Neal, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lisa Murray appeals the district court’s order granting her employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court for the reasons stated from the bench. See Murray v. Fairfax Cty. Sch. Bd. , No. CA-02-14-A (E.D. Va. filed July 12, 2002 & entered July 15, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
CAPHRA Overview for EPA, DPR, and PMRA November 7, 2013 , 1:30 pm
Potomac Yard South

- 9100

Meeting Summary

The Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA) provided
individuals from the Office of Pesticide Programs’ (OPP), California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), and Health Canada Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency an overview of CAPHRA’s work and how it fits with OPP’s vision of applying alternative 21 st century methods to transition away from traditional ch emical testing approaches.

List of Participants

EPA /OPP/HED Abdallah Khasawinah, Elissa Reaves, Jessica Kidwell, Anna Lowit, Angela Howard, Yung Yang, Minerva Mercado, R.J. Bever Jr., David Miller, John Liccione, Jaime D’Agostino, Linda Taylor, Elisabeth Mendez, Karlyn Middleton

EPA/ OPP/ AD
Jennifer McLain Jenny Tao

EPA/OPP/PRD
Garland Waleko

CAPHRA : John Clark (University of Massachusetts

– Amherst), Steve Symington (Salve Regina), Derek Gammon (FMC Corporation), Moire Creek (Valent USA Corporation), Jess ica Bartlow (CSPA), Matt Brooks (LG), Tom Osimitz (Science Strategies)

Participating by phone:

DPR Jay Schreider, Marilyn Silva, Carolyn Lewis, Andy Rubin, Eric Kwok, Linda Hall, Miglena Wilbur, Xiaofei Zhang

PMRA Cheryl Caffey, Brenda Linke, Wendy Bruce, Peter Chan
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-51046 (Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIPE ZARAGOZA; RICARDO BRIBIESCA,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas

(SA-95-CR-171-3-EP)

- - - - - - - - - - November 1, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendants-Appellants Felipe Zaragoza and Ricardo Bribiesca

appeal from the sentences that they received on remand. Appellants

argue that the district court erred in applyin g the money

laundering guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1, rather than the fraud

guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, in determining their sentences for

their money laundering convictions. This issue is barred by the

“law of the case” doctrine. U nited States v. Becerra

, 155 F.3d

740, 752 (5th Cir. 1998).2

Bribiesca argues that the district court erred in finding that

he was not entitled to an adjustment for his minor role pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, erred in failing to make a sufficient factfinding on the matter, and erred in the manner in which it ordered

restitution in his case. These issues are beyond the scope of this

court’s remand order. U nited States v. Marmolejo

, 139 F.3d 528,

530-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 1056 (1998).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
Montana Fourth Judicial District Court. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- GILBERT HENRY BEIERLE, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-08-428

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2016.

DATED this 29th day of February, 2016.

DECISION

On September 16, 2015, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, the Defendant’s sentence was revoked and he was sentenced to the Montana State Prison for a term of five (5) years, for the offense of Count I: Forgery, a Felony, in violation of 45-6-325(4), MCA. The Defendant shall participate in the Intensive Supervision Program if available to him at the Montana State Prison. The terms and conditions of the suspended portion of this Judgment are the same as those contained in the Judgment filed with the Court on May 22, 2009. The additional new terms and conditions of probation are that the Defendant shall be responsible for previously ordered restitution in the amount of $11,149.72, joint and severally with the Co-Defendant, Lance Beierle.

On February 4, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by video conferencing from the Great Falls Regional Prison and was represented by Jennifer Streano of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. *3John Warner, Member.
Comments in Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants 

by William Lochstet 

We know from climate science, that if we do not limit global warming to 2 degrees 

Celsius, the weather will become very hostile and dangerous. The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change in its 2013 report of Group l estimate that the world could emit up to about l.l 

teraton of carbon dioxide before reaching this limit, as illustrated by their RCP 2.6 scenario. This 

scenario involves a decrease in C02 emissions from a maximum today to a rate about one third 

smaller in 2030. for the world as a whole. This scenario is expected to result in a maximum 

temperature rise of less than 2 degrees Celsius, and slowly cool to normal after the year 2300. 

They considered three other scenarios with greater emissions, all of which have global 

temperatures increased by more than 2 degrees Celsius beyond the year 2300. These alternatives 

are dangerous security risks, with major migrations and famine. As a person of faith, I cannot 

condone to leaving such a legacy, with very violent weather, for future generations. We must 

decrease carbon dioxide emissions, nationally and internationally. 

Currently, the United States emits about 19% of the world's carbon dioxide, or about 6.5 

gigaton per year. A third of this, or 6% of the world's carbon dioxide comes from our 

generation of electricity. This industry must reduce its emissions just as much as any other 

group. As responsible citizens of the world. this nation must follow. if it cannot lead, other 

nations to cut its emissions by one third by 2030. Such a decrease would be a compromise that 

gives the states and the industry time to chose. plan, and implement the details. 

The EPA has solicited comments on "Concerns from Stakeholders" in the present 

proposed rule notice at 79 FR 34888. At issue is whether EPA has authority to "identifY redispatch, low- or zero-emitting generation, or demand side energy efficiency measures (building 

blocks 2, 3 and 4) as components of the 'best system of emission reduction.'" The purpose of the 

rule is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and these items can be considered suggestions. Then 

EPA can approve a plan for a state if it achieves a reduction in emissions in a way that is 

efficient and cost-effective, with or without the use of these specific techniques. 

Comments were also solicited at 79 FR 34836 on utilization of building blocks l and 2 

only. Since zero carbon generation in block 3, and energy efficiency in block 4, have such huge 

proven ability to reduce carbon dioxide. their elimination would be inappropriate. 

Block 3 does include nuclear generation. I recognize that this is current policy, but it is 

wrong. Nuclear power depends on the ability of people to anticipate in the original design 

everything that might go wrung. ''Human knowledge seems endless, and yet we do not know 

what we do not know."* This was evident at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima 

Daiichi. Waste disposal has not been solved. 

I would commend EPA on this significant step. Thauk You. 

*modified from the Iona Community Worship Book
No. 09-7372.

#### Larry Charles Welch, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 964, 130 S. Ct. 1574,

176 L. Ed. 2d 157,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1051.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1082, 130 S. Ct. 812, 175 L. Ed. 2d 570, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 8771.
No. 11-6587.

#### Roger J. Day, Petitioner v. Minnesota, et al.

565 U.S. 1056, 132 S. Ct. 797,

181 L. Ed. 2d 479,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8511.

November 28, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 19, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-2435

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

David M. Foston, also known as Max, also known as Prez

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ 

Submitted: April 15, 2022

Filed: May 13, 2022

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

David M. Foston appeals his sentence for conspiring to distribute cocaine in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, arguing that the district court1 erred in classifying him 

as a career offender. At sentencing, the district court stated that it “would still 

1

The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Missouri. 
-2- 

impose [the same] sentence” even if Foston did not qualify as a career offender. 

Thus, even assuming arguendo that the district court erred in classifying Foston as 

a career offender, the error was harmless and does not provide a basis to remand for 

resentencing. See United States v. Davis, 583 F.3d 1081, 1095 (8th Cir. 2009)

(“Because the district court explicitly stated it would have imposed a sentence of 

293 months imprisonment regardless of whether [the defendant] was a career 

offender, any error on the part of the district court is harmless, and we affirm.”). 

Accordingly, we affirm Foston’s sentence.

______________________________
No. 11-5738.

#### Duane Milton McClain, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1159, 132 S. Ct. 1091,

181 L. Ed. 2d 982,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 889.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 429 Fed. Appx. 538.