alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Joseph Watford, Respondent, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People ex rel. Corcoran v Smith,*105 AD2d 1142). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Newman, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.
# C_2008281EN.01000501.xml

| 5.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5326 — PTT Chemical/Sime Darby/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 281/06)

On 21 October 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5326. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5326. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Archives
                        Presentations
                                    World Dairy Expo
                                    Newsletters and Research Summaries
                    Resources
                        General Resources
                                    Books
                                    Teacher's Resources
                                    New Research Dairy Updates
                                    Integrated Research at USDFRCSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






About Usheadline bar IACUC Summaries - Milwaukee, WI Aquaculture
               IACUC Summaries - U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
[No. 21084-3-II.

Division Two.

August 22, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Welfare of*F.R. Billy Ray, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Social and Health Services, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 95-7-00222-0, Rosanne Buckner, J., entered July 23, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Armstrong, J.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13840]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2114]


Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Dickinson County, Kansas 
and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing 
its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, 
which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood 
Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone 
designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as 
proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps 
and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports 
for Dickinson County, Kansas and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective June 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
2114 to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal 
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#26564752544f454d08554745444f444f526640434b4708424e5508414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a6a7b6e6873797134697b79787378736e5a7c7f777b347e7269347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering 
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d0d1c090f141e16530e1c1e1f141f14093d1b18101c5319150e531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="74041500061d171f5a071517161d161d0034121119155a101c075a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>;

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 12, 2021, FEMA published a proposed 
notice at 86 FR 18998, proposing flood hazard determinations for 
Dickinson County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing 
the proposed notice.

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland 
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-13840 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### TAUSEND, Respondent, v. BAGGOTT et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 15, 1912.)

Action by Felix Tausend against Vallandigham B. *1148Baggott and another. *G.*Ryall, for appellants. J. Rieger, for respondent. No opinion. 'Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 23, 2021

No. 04-20-00311-CV

Margaret Fay GUIDRY,

Appellant

v.

Edward James GUIDRY, Jr.,

Appellee

From the 452nd District Court, Menard County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-05589

James L. Rex, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 17, 2021, Margaret Faye Guidry filed a “Motion to Stay Order Pending 

Appeal.” In order to stay enforcement of a final judgment pending appeal, a party must comply 

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 and Ms. Guidry has failed to do so. TEX. R. APP. P.

24. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. 

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of March, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0229

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

HALIE MARIA HERZOG,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 5, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 26 2024

06/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0229
Exhibit
      32.2




**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of EuroBancshares, Inc. (the
      “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yadira R. Mercado,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
                as
                applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and




(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




EUROBANCSHARES, INC.Dated:
              March 16, 2007
            By:
            /s/
              Yadira R. MercadoYadira
              R. MercadoChief
              Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to EuroBancshares, Inc. and will be retained by EuroBancshares, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4174

SHAWN DARNELL MASON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.

James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-98-19)

Submitted: July 31, 2001

Decided: August 15, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion. 

COUNSEL

Margaret McLeod Cain, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Ruth

E. Plagenhoef, United States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Shawn Darnell Mason appeals his conviction entered on his guilty

plea to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (1994), and a related firearms offense in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). In this appeal, Mason contends that his conviction deprived him of his right to testify at trial on

his own behalf and that the evidence against him was insufficient to

convict him of the firearms offense. See Bailey v. United States, 516

U.S. 137, 148 (1995). Mason also argues that the district court erred

in failing to grant sua sponte a downward departure under USSG

§ 5K1.1. Finding no merit to Mason’s contentions regarding his conviction and lacking the jurisdiction to review his claim that the district

court should have departed downward, we affirm Mason’s conviction

and sentence and dismiss this appeal in part. 

Mason’s first contention, that he was somehow denied his right to

testify, is completely foreclosed by his explicit waiver of that right

during the thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy conducted by the

district court. Similarly, by pleading guilty, Mason relinquished his

right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented as a factual basis for his plea to the firearms charge. United States v. Willis,

992 F.2d 489, 490-91 (4th Cir. 1993). Finally, review of the district

court’s decision not to depart is unavailable in the circumstances presented by this appeal. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-

86 (1992); United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 238-39 (4th Cir.

1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1130 (2000). That portion of the appeal

will be dismissed. 

Finding no reversible error, we affirm Mason’s conviction and sentence. 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

2 UNITED STATES v. MASON
Exhibit 10.7

SEALED AIR CORPORATION

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR DIRECTORS 

Instrument of Amendment

Approved by the Board of Directors on December 19, 2013.

Statement of Purpose

The Corporation sponsors Sealed Air Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors (the “Plan”).  The Corporation desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein to provide that dividend equivalents on stock units under the Plan will be credited as additional stock units rather than as a credit to the cash account.  In accordance with Section 7 of the Plan, this Instrument has been approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Corporation hereby amends the Plan, effective as of the date hereof, as follows:

1.The first sentence of Section 5(b) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

“If cash dividends should be paid on the Corporation’s Common Stock while any Participant has a Stock Account, each applicable Participant’s Stock Account shall be credited with additional full or fractional Stock Units for such cash dividends based on the number of Stock Units in the Stock Account on the applicable dividend record date and calculated based on the “Fair Market Value Per Share” of the Common Stock on the applicable dividend payment date (as such term is defined in the Directors Stock Plan).”

2.The last sentence of Section 6(c) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

“The number of shares of Common Stock equal to the number of Stock Units in the Stock Account as of such December 31 shall be issued to the Participant (or to the Participant’s designated beneficiary, if appropriate) between January 1 and January 31 of the following year; provided, however, that no fractional shares of Common Stock shall be issued, but instead the number of shares to be issued as part of each payment shall be rounded to the nearest whole number of shares.”

3.Except as expressly or by necessary implication amended hereby, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.
# C_2008213EN.01000101.xml

| 21.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5109 — Danisco/Abitec)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 213/01)

On 15 July 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5109. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5109. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2019 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyriproxyfen. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyriproxyfen. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PYRIPROXYFEN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.06.18 2-[1-Methyl-2-(4- 

phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxy]pyridine (CAS No. 

95737–68–1) (provided for 

in subheading 2933.39.27) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2019 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

 SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

TRAVIS CUNNINGHAM, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-395 

vs. ) 

) 

SUPERINTENDENT, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28 

U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Travis 

Cunningham, a pro se prisoner, on June 23, 2016. For the reasons 

set forth below, the court DISMISSES the petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

because the claims are unexhausted. 

DISCUSSION 

 Cunningham filed a habeas corpus petition challenging WCC 16-

05-458, a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Westville 

Correctional Facility. On May 27, 2016, a Disciplinary Hearing 

Officer (DHO) found him guilty of Conspiracy/Attempting/Aiding or 

Abetting in violation of A-111. As a result, he was sanctioned 

with the loss of 60 days earned credit time and demoted to Credit 

Class 2. 
- 2 - 

 In his petition, Cunningham attempts to raise four grounds to 

challenge the finding of guilt. However, he acknowledges that he 

has not presented any of these grounds to the Final Reviewing 

Authority. DE 1 at 1-3. 

 In habeas corpus proceedings, the exhaustion requirement is 

contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 

 Indiana does not provide judicial review of 

decisions by prison administrative bodies, so the 

exhaustion requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) is 

satisfied by pursuing all administrative remedies. These 

are, we held in Markham v. Clark, 978 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 

1992), the sort of “available State corrective process” 

(§ 2254(b)(1)(B)(i)) that a prisoner must use. Indiana 

offers two levels of administrative review: a prisoner 

aggrieved by the decision of a disciplinary panel may 

appeal first to the warden and then to a statewide body 

called the Final Reviewing Authority. Moffat sought 

review by both bodies, but his argument was limited to 

the contention that the evidence did not support the 

board’s decision. He did not complain to either the 

warden or the Final Reviewing Authority about the 

board’s sketchy explanation for its decision. O’Sullivan 

v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 

1 (1999), holds that to exhaust a claim, and thus 

preserve it for collateral review under § 2254, a 

prisoner must present that legal theory to the state’s 

supreme court. The Final Reviewing Authority is the 

administrative equivalent to the state’s highest court, 

so the holding of Boerckel implies that when 

administrative remedies must be exhausted, a legal 

contention must be presented to each administrative 

level. 

Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-82 (7th Cir. 2002). 

 Because Cunningham concedes that he did not present these 

three grounds to the Final Reviewing Authority, they unexhausted. 
- 3 - 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES the 

petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the claims are unexhausted. 

DATED: July 6, 2016 

 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge 

United State District Court
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Animal Parasitic Diseases Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Resources
                        Our ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Animal Parasitic Diseases Laboratory





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles  New Freeze-Resistant Trichinella Species DiscoveredMay 06, 2020Three Scientists Named to ARS Science Hall of FameApr 10, 2019USDA's Agricultural Research Service Honors Scientists of the YearApr 09, 2019Delivering Vaccines Chicks Can Gobble UpJan 28, 2014USDA's Agricultural Research Service Announces Scientist of the Year and Other AwardsJun 11, 2013


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov