alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1Little’s objection that his indictment for possession with intent to

distribute and distribution under Counts 33 and 34 in cause number C-CR-87-19,

was an improper re-indictment of him for the same offense for which he was

convicted in cause number C-CR-86-18-01, is not addressable in this action under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Little, 392 F.3d 671, 674-77 (4th Cir.

2004)(noting Little’s “long history of litigation in this court [relating to his

conviction and sentence],” and distinguishing claims to be brought under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 from § 2241). Furthermore, such argument does not favor his

sentence credit claim. Little’s sentence on counts 33 and 34, as well as counts

3-10, 12-14, 22, 23, 30, and 31 of case number C-CR-87-19, was aggregated with

the sentence earlier imposed in case number C-CR-86-18, and Little was given

sentence credit towards that aggregate sentence from the April 11, 1986, date of

sentencing in case number C-CR-86-18. (May 5, 2005, Objections-Exhibit A;

Declaration of Hazelton, ¶¶ 3-4.) As Little does not dispute, he has already

paroled from that aggregate sentence. (Declaration of Hazelton, ¶ 3.) Little is

now imprisoned on the non-parolable thirty year sentence for engaging in a

Continuing Criminal Enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848. (May 5, 2005,

Objections-Exhibit A; Declaration of Hazelton, ¶ 3.) Little is not entitled to

again receive presentence credit towards the CCE sentence.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-044-Y

 §

COLE JETER, Warden, §

FMC-Fort Worth, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Michael Aaron Little

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of

the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

April 27, 2005; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on May 5, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Little’s

objections must be overruled,1 and that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be denied, for the

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00044-Y Document 11 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 105
2

reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions,

and for the reasons stated in respondent Jeter’s March 25, 2005,

response at pages 4-6. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby,

ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that Michael Aaron Little’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be, and is hereby,

DENIED.

SIGNED May 16, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00044-Y Document 11 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 106
# C_2019319EN.01000801.xml

| 23.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-556/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Common procedures for granting international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46(3) - Full and ex nunc examination - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy - Extent of the powers of the first-instance court or tribunal - No power to vary - Refusal by the competent administrative or quasi-judicial body to comply with a decision of that court or tribunal)

(2019/C 319/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alekszij Torubarov

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where a first-instance court or tribunal has found — after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by an applicant for international protection — that, under the criteria laid down by Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted, that applicant must be granted such protection on the ground that he or she relied on in support of his or her application, but after which the administrative or quasi-judicial body adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment of the international protection needs of the applicant, that court or tribunal must vary that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the application for international protection, disapplying as necessary the national law that would prohibit it from proceeding in that way.

---

(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CLYDE GREER, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-0908-D

)

TEXAS BOARD OF PARDON )

AND PAROLES, )

Defendant. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of

the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED August 4, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00908-D Document 9 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 25
119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 776 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 

2003. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 776 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nutria Eradication 

3 and Control Reauthorization Act of 2025’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NUTRIA ERADICATION AND 

5 CONTROL ACT OF 2003. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(e) of the Nutria Eradi7 cation and Control Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 8102(e)) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘2025’’ and inserting ‘‘2030’’. 

9 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 3(a) of the 

10 Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 

11 8102(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘ ‘Secretary’),’’ and in12 serting ‘‘ ‘Secretary’)’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 4, 

2025. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 776 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control 

Act of 2003.
# C_2017347EN.01001401.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2017 — Tänzer & Trasper GmbH v Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft

(Case C-462/17)

(2017/C 347/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tänzer & Trasper GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the components listed in category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (1) the minimum components that a spirit drink must contain in order to be permitted to bear the sales denomination ‘egg liqueur’ (a minimum specification) or is category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 an exhaustive list of the components that are permissible in a product seeking to bear the sales denomination ‘egg liqueur’?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, OJ 2008 L 39, p. 16.

1

---
EX PARTE Elizabeth Gonzalez SMITH, Diana Gonzalez Wadlington, Yvonne Gonzalez, Keisha Gonzalez, and Shyla Gonzalez Dogan

(In re: The Estate of Ann Kelly Hudson, Deceased)

2170058

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Larry Bernard PACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3516

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ISIAH LAND , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:01

- cr - 00197

- RBS

- 1; 2:16

- cv 00252

- RBS )

Submitted : March 15, 2018 Decided: March 28, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Paul E. Shelton, Research and Writing Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Un ited States Attorney, Christopher Catizone, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE U NITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria , Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Isiah Land appeals the di strict court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on whether the distric t court erred in ruling that Land’s prior Virginia convictions for malicious wounding and unlawful woundi ng were violent felonies under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012), and we placed this appeal in abeyance for United States v. Jenkins , No. 16

- 4121, __ F. App’x __, 2018 WL 1225728 (4th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018) (holding Virginia convictions fo r unlawful wounding and malicious wounding qualified as violent felonies under § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)). In light of Jenkins , w e have reviewed the

recor d and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Lan d , No. 2:01

- cr - 00197

- RBS

- 1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3827-3828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00710]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0454; FRL 12023-03-OW]

Draft National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the 
Protection of Human Health for Perfluorooctanoic Acid, Perfluorooctane 
Sulfonic Acid, and Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 3828]]

ACTION: Notice of availability; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a 
correction to a notice that appeared in the Federal Register on 
December 26, 2024. The notice of availability contained an incorrect 
value in Table 1, which is corrected below.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandi Echols, Health and Ecological 
Criteria Division, Office of Water (4304T), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 566-2717; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a notice of availability in 
the Federal Register at 89 FR 105041, December 26, 2024. This document 
corrects an error in Table 1, third column, second row, by correcting 
the PFOA Organism Only HHC value of 0.00036 ng/L to 0.0036 ng/L. This 
notice for correction corrects that error.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of December 26, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-
30637, on page 105042, correct ``Table 1'' to read:

                       Table 1--Draft Human Health Criteria (HHC) for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        PFAS                          Water + organism HHC  (ng/L)    Organism only HHC  (ng/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFOA................................................                        0.0009                        0.0036
PFOS................................................                          0.06                          0.07
PFBS................................................                           400                           500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tanya Hodge Mottley,
Acting Director, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2025-00710 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
# C_2017006EN.01004701.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/47

---

Action brought on 5 November 2016 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS)

(Case T-765/16)

(2017/C 006/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL (Puerto del Rosario, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS’ — Application for registration No 13 308 259

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 in Case R 1404/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (j) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (j) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line, Inc.;

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

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

4. The registrants
other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: September 13, 2007



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|    |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
Todd Lamond MURRAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4101

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Statement on the Drought

Kenneth Spearman, Board Member

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

July 12, 2012

I concur with the concerns raised by my fellow Board members at today’s Farm Credit 

Administration Board meeting regarding the need for the agency to closely monitor the 

developing drought situation in the Midwest described by Chairman Strom. As a contrast, I just 

returned from a visit to agricultural regions in the Pacific Northwest where there have been 

excellent weather conditions for agricultural production.

Recent years have evidenced increasingly volatile climatic conditions affecting agriculture in 

various regions across the United States, including the severe and prolonged drought affecting 

Texas and the Southwest. While these climate issues have not yet had a material adverse effect 

on System institutions, as the regulator of the nationwide Farm Credit System, we must

continue to monitor potential weather-related risks in all areas of the country from a safety and 

soundness perspective. I appreciate and recognize the efforts of our Office of Examination in 

effectively monitoring all sorts of risks, including risks related to weather.
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 31 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 177
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 31 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 178
EX PARTE James ROBINSON

1160909 (CR-16-0480)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
IV 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 59 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the sermon given 

by the Right Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde at the National Prayer 

Service on January 21st, 2025, at the National Cathedral was a display 

of political activism and condemning its distorted message. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2025 

Mr. BRECHEEN (for himself, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. BURLISON, 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina, Mrs. BICE, Mrs. 

LUNA, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. OGLES, Ms. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. 

NORMAN, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BABIN, Mrs. 

HOUCHIN, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. BAIRD, Mrs. BIGGS of South Carolina, 

Ms. BOEBERT, and Mr. GRIFFITH) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the sermon given by the Right Reverend Mariann Edgar 

Budde at the National Prayer Service on January 21st, 

2025, at the National Cathedral was a display of political 

activism and condemning its distorted message. 

Whereas the National Prayer Service is a longstanding tradition in which the United States publicly affirms dependence upon God and prays for the success of our President 

and Vice President; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 59 IH 

Whereas, on January 21, 2025, President Donald J. Trump 

and Vice President J.D. Vance took part in the National 

Prayer Service at the National Cathedral in Washington, 

DC; and 

Whereas the Right Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde, the 

bishop leading the inaugural prayer service, used her position inappropriately, promoting political bias instead of 

advocating the full counsel of biblical teaching: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) it is the sense of the House of Representa3 tives that the sermon given at the National Prayer 

4 Service on January 21st, 2025, at the National Ca5 thedral was a display of political activism; and 

6 (2) the House of Representatives condemns the 

7 Right Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde’s distorted 

8 message. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Lawton COHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Case 2:03-cv-00191-J Document 21 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 74
Leroy C. REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2336

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.