alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2008114EN.01008701.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 114/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 114/87

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 379/2008

of 25 April 2008

determining the allocation of export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006 of 17 August 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products (2), and in particular Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

Chapter III(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006 determines the procedure for allocating export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under a quota opened for that country. Applications submitted for the 2008/2009 quota year cover quantities greater than those available. As a result, allocation coefficients should be set for the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities covered by export licence applications for the products referred to in Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006 submitted for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 shall be multiplied by the following allocation coefficients:

| — | 0,699913 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 30(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

0,699913 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 30(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006,

| — | 0,292810 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 30(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006. |
| --- | --- |

—

0,292810 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 30(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 April 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 April 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1152/2007 (OJ L 258, 4.10.2007, p. 3). Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 will be replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) as from 1 July 2008.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 234, 29.8.2006, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 532/2007 (OJ L 125, 15.5.2007, p. 7).

2

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4800

_____________________________

THEODORE M. FREEMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Bruce Anderson, Judge.

December 12, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Theodore M. Freeman, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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
 Plant Polymer Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR HomepageSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Peoria, Illinois National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research Plant Polymer Research Docs





- PPL Homepage
- Yahoo
- PPL important documents

Umbraco New User Demoheadline bar This is our Demo Page  /ARSUserFiles/50100510/Picture 1 welcome.jpg


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
# C_2008227EN.01000101.xml

| 4.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5256 — Burani/3i/APB)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 227/01)

On 4 August 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 32008M5256. 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 32008M5256. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2904

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Ronnie Joe Benson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 7, 2009 Filed: July 9, 2009

___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ronnie Benson appeals following the district court’s 1 orders reducing his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) a nd denying reconsideration. We affirm. In 1997, a jury found Benson guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court sentenced him to a total of 360 months in prison (the bo ttom of the Guidelines range of 360 months-2- to life) and 5 years of supervised release. We affirmed the conviction and sentence. See United States v. Sanders , Nos. 07-3782/3856, 1998 WL 796101, at *1 (8th Cir. Nov. 16, 1998) (unpublished per curiam).
In June 2008, Benson filed a counseled motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines, which re troactively reduced base offense levels for crack offenses. The government indicated that it did not object to imposition of a sentence at the bottom of the revised sentencing range of 292-365 months. The district court granted Benson’s motion and reduced his 360-month prison sentence to 292 months. In a pro se motion to recons ider, Benson challenged his counsel’s failure to object to the drug-quantity calculations in his presentence report. The district court denied the motion. We have considered Benson’s arguments on appeal, and we find no grounds for reversal. See United States v. Starks , 551 F.3d 839, 841-43 (8th Cir.) (discussing narrow scope of sentence re ductions under § 3582(c), and inapplicability of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005)), cert. denied , 2009 WL 1043901 (U.S. June 1, 2009) (No. 08-9839). As to Benson’s co mplaint about his counsel, we note that there is no right to counsel in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. SeeUnited States v. Brown , 565 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and Benson’s motion to supplement, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3698 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve veterans 

service organizations access to Federal surplus personal 

property. 

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

†S 3698 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Formerly Owned Re3 sources for Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act 

4 of 2012’’ or the ‘‘FOR VETS Act of 2012’’. 

5 SEC. 2. VETERANS ACCESS TO FEDERAL EXCESS AND SUR6 PLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY. 

7 Section 549(c)(3) of title 40, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

10 the end; 

11 (2) in subparagraph (B)— 

12 (A) in clause (viii), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the 

13 end; and 

14 (B) by striking clause (x); and 

15 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(C) for purposes of providing services to 

17 veterans (as defined in section 101 of title 38), 

18 to an organization whose— 

19 ‘‘(i) membership comprises substan20 tially veterans; and 
3 

†S 3698 ES

1 ‘‘(ii) representatives are recognized by 

2 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under 

3 section 5902 of title 38.’’. 

Passed the Senate December 19, 2012. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3698 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve 

surplus personal property. veterans service organizations access to Federal
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 7 ,

2012.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 11

- 00788

- CV

FLEX REALTY, L.P. AN D FLEX INVESTMENTS, L.P. , Appellant s

V.
JANICE LYN CASEY, SU CCESSOR INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHERINE A. JACOBSON, DECEASE D , Appellee

On Appeal from the 434th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 09

- DCV

- 175411



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 25, 2011. On February 1, 2012, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the case has been settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed

.
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Boyce.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7727

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ALPHONSO DAVIS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:95-cr-00059-FDW-1) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Alphonso Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Alphonso Davis appeals the district court's order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. On appeal, 

Davis contends that he should be resentenced under Amendment 706 

of the Sentencing Guidelines because the district court 

incorrectly categorized him as a career offender. See U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 

2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706; see also USSG § 4B1.1. We note 

that Davis’ sentence was not determined by his status as a 

career offender. Rather, he was sentenced to the statutory 

mandatory minimum term under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006). 

Therefore, Davis is not eligible for a sentencing reduction 

under the amendment to the guidelines. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s order. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6644

TOMMY ALEXANDER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

R. D. MILES, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:05-cv-00793-jlk)

Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tommy Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Alexander, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)

petition and subsequent motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Alexander v. Miles, No. 7:05-cv-00793-jlk

(W.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2006; Feb. 7, 2006). 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
EX-10(XCIII) Amdt. 3 NMGH Senior Long Term Plan



 



Exhibit 10(xciii)


AMENDMENT NO. 3

TO THE

NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC.

SENIOR LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

(EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2000)



     NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc. (the “Company”), on the order of the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, hereby adopts
this Amendment No. 3 to the NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc. Senior
Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (Effective as of January 1, 2000) (the
“Plan”) effective as of January 1, 2003.. Words and phrases used herein with
initial capital letters which are defined in the Plan are used herein as so
defined.


Section 1



     Section 11(b)(ii)(2) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read
as follows:


     “(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of clause (1), (A) each Employer
shall be solely liable for the payment of the Awards it granted to its
employees; (B) if a Participant has been employed by more than one Employer,
the Employer who employs the Participant at the time of the payment of the
Award shall pay the entire amount of such Award; (C) each Employer (unless it
is Insolvent) shall reimburse the paying Employer for its allocable share of
the Participant’s Award; (D) if any responsible Employer is Insolvent at the
time of payment, the last Employer shall not be required to make a distribution
to the Participant with respect to amounts which are allocable to service with
that Employer; and (E) each Employer shall (to the extent permitted by
applicable law) receive an income tax deduction for the Employer’s allocable
share of the payment of the Participant’s Award.”




	 	 	 
	 	
EXECUTED this 9th day of April, 2003.
	 
	 	
NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By: /s/ James M. Phillips	
 
	 	Title: Vice President Human Resources
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL GRIMES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

J. BEARD, Secretary of Calif Dept of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, in his 

individual capacity; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56686 

D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02267-ODWAGR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. 

Former California state prisoner Michael Grimes appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various 

constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-56686 

novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Grimes’s deliberate indifference claim 

because Grimes failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of 

and disregarded an excessive risk to Grimes’s health or safety. See Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official cannot be held liable for 

deliberate indifference “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive 

risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which 

the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he 

must also draw the inference”). 

The district court properly dismissed Grimes’s due process claim because 

Grimes failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the disciplinary decision was 

not supported by some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 

(1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the 

disciplinary decision). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Grimes’s motion to dismiss case without prejudice is denied as moot. 

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JOSHUA LOVE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:13 CV 633 

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION and ORDER

Joshua Love, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging

a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE # 1.) The court is obligated to review the petition

and dismiss it if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254

CASES.

According to the petition, Love was found guilty at the Westville Correctional

Facility of destroying state property. (DE # 1 at 1.) He was sanctioned with disciplinary

segregation, a temporary loss of phone privileges, and an order to pay $275 in

restitution. (Id.) He claims that his due process rights were violated in connection with

the hearing. (Id. at 3-4.)

A prison disciplinary sanction can only be challenged in a habeas proceeding if it

lengthens the duration of the prisoner’s confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661,

664-65 (7th Cir. 2003). A prison’s decision to house an inmate in segregation, to suspend

certain privileges, or to impose other such sanctions affects the severity, not the

case 3:13-cv-00633-JTM document 4 filed 07/02/13 page 1 of 2
duration, of confinement; thus, an inmate cannot use habeas corpus to challenge that

determination. See Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2001). The

sanctions imposed in Love’s case did not lengthen the duration of his confinement, and

he cannot challenge them in a habeas petition. Instead, “[m]ore-restrictive custody must

be challenged under § 1983, in the uncommon circumstances when it can be challenged

at all.” Id. at 644; see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484-85 (1995) (prisoners are not

entitled to due process protections unless a change in prison conditions results in an

“atypical and significant hardship” when compared to “the ordinary incidents of prison

life”).

For these reasons, the petition (DE # 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to RULE 4 OF THE

RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES.

SO ORDERED.

Date: July 2, 2013

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

case 3:13-cv-00633-JTM document 4 filed 07/02/13 page 2 of 2
#### BLENIS, Respondent, v. UTICA KNITTING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by Frank L. Blenis against the Utica Knitting Company. No opinion. Judgment (73 Misc. Rep. 61, 130 N. Y. Supp. 740) affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Daybreak Oil and Gas, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned,
in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant to 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|    |                                                                                                                                                       
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.

|                                                                                              | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: May
 26, 2011                                                                          
|                                                                                             
|By /s/ JAMES F. WESTMORELAND                                                                  | 
|                                                                                              | 
|James F.
 Westmoreland,
 President, Chief Executive Officer                                  
|and interim
 principal finance and accounting officer                                        
|(Principal
 Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
 Officer)

---