alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The HONORABLE JIMM LARRY HENDREN, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11-1250

___________ James Kevin Warford, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * United Parcel Service, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 4, 2011 Filed: August 11, 2011

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

___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas resident James Warfordappeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to remand his diversity action agains t United Parcel Service, Inc., which had been removed from Arkansas state cour t. After careful de novo review, see In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig. , 591 F.3d 613, 619 (8th Cir. 2010), we conclude that, on its face, the complaint sufficiently demons trated that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional amount. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 41 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that Congress should reduce spending 

by the amount resulting from the recently announced earmark moratorium. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2011 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Budget 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that Congress should 

reduce spending by the amount resulting from the recently announced earmark moratorium. 

Whereas the debt of the United States exceeds 

$14,000,000,000,000; 

Whereas it is important for Congress to use all tools at its 

disposal to address the national debt crisis; 

Whereas Congress will not earmark funds for projects requested by Members of Congress; and 

Whereas the earmark ban should be utilized to realize actual 

savings: Now, therefore, be it 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 41 IS 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Con2 gress should reduce spending by the amount resulting 

3 from the recently announced earmark moratorium. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LeRoy Brown, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 826]

Appeal from a judg*1462ment of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 21, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree and harassment in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [v]) and harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during summation *(see People v Mc-Eathron,*86 AD3d 915, 916 [2011]; *People v Lyon,*77 AD3d 1338, 1339 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 954 [2010]). Specifically, defendant either failed to object to the alleged instances of misconduct *(see People v Paul,*78 AD3d 1684, 1684-1685 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 834 [2011]), or his objections thereto “were merely general objections without a specified basis” *(People v Beggs,*19 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 803 [2005]; *see People v Parks,*66 AD3d 1429, 1430 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 804 [2010]; *see generally People v Romero,*7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]). In any event, defendant’s contention is without merit. The majority of the comments in question were within “ ‘the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible’ ” during summations *(People v Williams,*28 AD3d 1059, 1061 [2006], *affd*8 NY3d 854 [2007], quoting *People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]), and they were “either a fair response to defense counsel’s summation or fair comment on the evidence” *(McEathron,*86 AD3d at 916 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Even assuming, arguendo, that some of the prosecutor’s comments were beyond those bounds, we conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial” *(id.).*Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
[Cite as In re Chuparkoff , __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-186.]

I N RE C HUPARKOFF . [Cite as In re Chuparkoff, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-186.] (No. 2015-2076

— Submitted January 20, 2016

— Decided January 21, 2016.)
O N C ERTIFIED E NTRY OF D EFAULT OF C HILD -S UPPORT O RDER

.

____________________ {¶ 1} On December 30, 2015, this court suspended respondent, Mark Andrew Chuparkoff, for an interim peri od pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(18)(A)(4). On January 19, 2016, the Board of Prof essional Conduct submitted a notice pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(18)(D)(1)(c), no tifying this court that respondent no longer was in default of the child-support order previously submitted to the court. {¶ 2} On consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(18)(D)(1), respondent, Ma rk Andrew Chuparkoff, Attorney Registration No. 0071982, last known busin ess address in Akron, Ohio, be reinstated to the practice of law. {¶ 3} It is further ordered that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(18)(D)(2), reinstatement of respondent shall not terminate any pending disciplinary proceedings against respondent. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

________________________
I, *Neil Grantt Swan,*certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Lihir Gold Limited;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a – 14 and 15d – 15(e)) forthe company and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresbased, as of the end of the period covered by this report on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee ofcompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting   Date: June 28, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 381 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 381

  Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2012

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

    Resolved, That paragraph 1 of rule IV of the Rules for the 
Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol and Senate 
Office Buildings (prohibiting the taking of pictures in the Senate 
Chamber) be temporarily suspended for the sole and specific purpose of 
permitting the Senate Photographic Studio to photograph the United 
States Senate in actual session on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at the hour 
of 2:15 p.m.
    Sec. 2.  The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and 
directed to make the necessary arrangements therefore, which 
arrangements shall provide for a minimum of disruption to Senate 
proceedings.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal L 7/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.007.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 7 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5511 January 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.007.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 7

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5511 January 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 12/2012 of 10 January 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2012/21/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest
  (notified under document C(2011) 9380)

   (1) | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 12/2012 of 10 January 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

DECISIONS

2012/21/EU

*

Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest
  (notified under document C(2011) 9380)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 9380)

3

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    212,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               241,396
<PP&E>                                          96,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 368,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          155,822
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   368,347
<SALES>                                        354,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               364,426
<CGS>                                          237,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,051)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,576)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,576)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:* Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)-PAR 18-812, NIOSH Member Conflict Review.

*Date:* October 26, 2021.

*Time:* 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m., EDT.

*Place:* Teleconference.

*Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications.

*For Further Information Contact:* Michael Goldcamp, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Programs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, Telephone: (304) 285-5951, *MGoldcamp@cdc.gov.*

The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2021-16610 Filed 8-3-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Danilo GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Oscar Daniello Mendoza, also known as Roverto Ponse, also known as Carlos Rodriguez, also known as Roberto Perdomo-Ponce, also known as Roberto Perdomo Ponce, also known as Oscar Danilo Rodriguez-Gien, also known as Oscar Danilo Garcia, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Danilo Garcia-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 09-20406, 09-40635.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 9, 2011.

John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public *26Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Oscar Danilo Garcia-Rodriguez, Yazoo City, MS,

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On May 2, 2011, this court issued an opinion holding that Oscar Danilo Garcia-Rodriguez was “released from imprisonment” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) when he was transferred from Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. *United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez,*640 F.3d 129, 134 (5th Cir.2011). We retained jurisdiction over the case and issued a limited remand to the district court for the purpose of determining, inter alia, the precise date on which Garcia was transferred from BOP custody to ICE custody. We received the district court’s Report of Findings on July 7, 2011, and the parties declined to file supplemental letter briefs addressing the content and application of the district court’s factual findings. We now issue this dispositive opinion addressing the sole issue on appeal: whether the district court had jurisdiction to revoke Garcia’s three-year term of supervised release in Case No. 09-40635.

The district court found that “Garcia was transferred from BOP custody to ICE custody on October 28, 2005.” We review the district court’s factual finding for clear error. *See, e.g., United States v. Moore,*635 F.3d 774, 776 (5th Cir.2011). We do not find, and the parties do not argue, that the district court’s determination of Garcia’s transfer date of October 28, 2005, was clearly erroneous. Therefore, because the revocation warrant was issued on October 24, 2008, less than three years after Garcia’s transfer, we hold that the district court had jurisdiction to revoke Garcia’s supervised release. *See United States v. Jackson,*426 F.3d 301, 304 (5th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# Official Journal L 79/19 M

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 79 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5119 March 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 79

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5119 March 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC
   (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC
   (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.