alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 49027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19025]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 86 FR 47498.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Tuesday, August 31, 
2021 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open 
meeting on September 2, 2021.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: This meeting will also discuss:
    Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules 
and practices.
    Matters which involve the consideration of a proceeding of a formal 
nature by the Commission against a specific person or the formal 
censure of any person.
    Information of which disclosure would constitute an unwarranted 
invasion of privacy.
    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed 
Commission action.
* * * * *

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Vicktoria J. Allen,
Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-19025 Filed 8-30-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 48982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18884]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-52-2020]


Foreign-Trade Zone 38--Spartanburg County, South Carolina; 
Application for Production Authority; Teijin Carbon Fibers, Inc.; 
(Polyacrylonitrile-based Carbon Fiber); Extension of Rebuttal Comment 
Period

    The current rebuttal comment period pertaining to the amended 
application for production authority within Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38 
on behalf of Teijin Carbon Fibers, Inc., is being extended to September 
10, 2021, based on a request from the applicant. The original closing 
of the rebuttal period had been set for September 2, 2021 (86 FR 38010, 
July 19, 2021). Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's 
Executive Secretary and sent to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99f8d83b98d8b989d9cd79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8aecfef0cafef8ebeeefa4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For further information, contact Diane Finver at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#23674a424d460d654a4d5546516357514247460d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c18353d3239721a35322a392e1c282e3d3839723b332a">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: August 26, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18884 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

FRONT RANGE EQUINE RESCUE, 

Plaintiff,

No. 3:16-cv-00149-AC

v. 

ORDER 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

and INTERIOR BOARD OF LAND 

APPEALS, 

 

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [33] on March 13, 

2017, in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

[20] and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [21]. The matter is now before the 

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
2 – ORDER

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were 

timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. 

Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of 

Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal 

principles de novo, the Court finds no error.

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings & Recommendation [33], and 

therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [20] is granted and Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment [21] is denied. The decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals is 

affirmed. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ___________________ day of _________________________, 2017.

________________________________________________ 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

23 April

 Marco Hernandez
#### Aynesse A. Farrah et al. *v.*Bloomfield Stores, Inc., et al.

*Raphael Korff,*in support of the petition.

*John H. Goodrich, Jr.,*in opposition.

Submitted April 1

decided April 15, 1975

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1762 

AN ACT 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs communitybased outpatient clinic in The Dalles, Oregon, as the 

‘‘Loren R. Kaufman VA Clinic’’. 

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

•HR 1762 EH

1 SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 

3 THE DALLES, OREGON. 

4 The Department of Veterans Affairs community5 based outpatient clinic located at 704 Veterans Drive, The 

6 Dalles, Oregon, shall after the date of the enactment of 

7 this Act be known and designated as the ‘‘Loren R. Kauf8 man VA Clinic’’. Any reference to such community-based 

9 outpatient clinic in any law, regulation, map, document, 

10 record, or other paper of the United States shall be consid11 ered to be a reference to the Loren R. Kaufman VA Clinic. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1762 

AN ACT 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs comegon, as the ‘‘Loren R. Kaufman VA Clinic’’. munity-based outpatient clinic in The Dalles, Or-
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 03-4504



# 
K ENITH T ONEY , Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge.

(CR-02-299) Submitted: October 29, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Richard M. Gunnoe, ZIEGLER & GUNNOE, Hinton, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, W. Chad Noel, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Kenith Toney pled guilty to distribution of more than five grams of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000), and was sentenced to a term of 168 months imprisonment. He contests the district court’s determination that he failed to accept responsibility for his conduct under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2002). We affirm. Immediately following his arrest, Toney made a statement to the investigating officers in which he said he had made one or two trips a month from Ohio to West Virginia over the previous six or seven months, each time bringing two or three ounces of crack with him to sell, and making a profit of five or six thousand dollars on each trip. Some months later, when he was interviewed by the probation officer, Toney said he had lied to the officers, and that he had never before sold crack in West Virginia. The district court determined that Toney’s first statement was the more reliable one, while his second statement was intended to minimize his exposure. Because the district court found that Toney had not provided truthful information to the probation officer, the court denied him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. A defendant need not divulge relevant conduct outside the offenseof conviction, but "a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility." USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)); United States v. Pauley , 289 F.3d 254, 261 (4th Cir.), modified , 304 F.3d 335 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 1007 (2003). Because the district court found that Toney had not truthfully acknowledged the extent of his criminal conduct in his statement to the probation officer, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying him the adjustment. United States v. Ruhe , 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating standard of review). We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 2 U NITED S TATES v. T ONEYare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. T ONEY
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Lawrence, Appellant.

The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial to establish his guilt of robbery in the first degree. In order to prove the defendant’s guilt of this crime, the People were required to prove that the defendant actually used an instrument during the crime which was "readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00 [13]; *People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400, 407, *cert denied*449 US 1087; *People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374). In this case, the complainant testified that the defendant threatened to cut her and she concluded that he had a knife because she felt a cold hard object next to her body. Although the *598complainant did not see the object, viewing the circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932; *People v Kennedy,*47 NY2d 196), and giving the People the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom *(People v Lewis,*64 NY2d 1111, 1112), we find that the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the first degree was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

We further find the defendant’s remaining contentions to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# L_2009281EN.01000501.xml

| 28.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 281/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 281/5

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 26 October 2009

releasing the United Kingdom from certain obligations to apply Council Directive 66/402/EEC in respect of Avena strigosa Schreb.

(notified under document C(2009) 8038)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/786/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (1), and in particular Article 23a thereof,

Having regard to the request submitted by the United Kingdom,

Whereas:

| (1) | Under Directive 66/402/EEC the Commission may, subject to certain conditions, release a Member State from obligations for the marketing of cereal seed set out in that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Under Directive 66/402/EEC the Commission may, subject to certain conditions, release a Member State from obligations for the marketing of cereal seed set out in that Directive.

| (2) | The United Kingdom has applied for release from their obligations in respect of Avena strigosa Schreb. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The United Kingdom has applied for release from their obligations in respect of Avena strigosa Schreb.

| (3) | The seed of that species is not normally reproduced or marketed in the United Kingdom. In addition, the growing of Avena strigosa Schreb. is of minimum economic importance in the abovementioned country. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The seed of that species is not normally reproduced or marketed in the United Kingdom. In addition, the growing of Avena strigosa Schreb. is of minimum economic importance in the abovementioned country.

| (4) | As long as those conditions remain, the relevant Member State should be released from the obligation to apply the provision of Directive 66/402/EEC to the material in question. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

As long as those conditions remain, the relevant Member State should be released from the obligation to apply the provision of Directive 66/402/EEC to the material in question.

| (5) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The United Kingdom is released from the obligation to apply Directive 66/402/EEC, with the exception of Article 14(1), to the species of Avena strigosa Schreb.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Done at Brussels, 26 October 2009.

For the Commission

Androulla VASSILIOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ 125, 11.7.1966, p. 2309/66.

1

---
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
 National Clonal Germplasm Repository: Corvallis, OR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Plant Collections
                        Home
                                    Plant Collecting Expeditions
                                    Germplasm CGC Reports
                                    GRIN-Global
                                    Outreach
                                    Documents
                    USDASearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Corvallis, Oregon National Clonal Germplasm Repository People & Locations







Sunny  Green
                        National Clonal Germplasm Repository

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (541) 738-4200
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND FROM THE INCOME STATEMENT FOR
THE 3 MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       276,238
<SECURITIES>                                 500,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              2,415,599
<ALLOWANCES>                                 112,000
<INVENTORY>                                4,565,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           7,877,403
<PP&E>                                     4,358,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            14,299,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3,545,529
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     105,603
<OTHER-SE>                                 6,426,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              14,299,297
<SALES>                                    3,458,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3,458,181
<CGS>                                      2,107,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,182,155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           111,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               75,522
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           75,522
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  75,522
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .02
        


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

S eptember 28 , 2018

t0927 

# Order

Clerk September 28 , 2018

157655

JEFFREY FLINT,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 157655

COA: 340043

Genesee CC: 17

- 321598

- DC

JOY SWEETIN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2018

judgment o f the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Order entered January 20 , 201 5

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01505
- CV
DALLAS NATIONAL INSU RANCE COMPANY, Appellant
V. CALITEX CORP., ELSHI R ENTERPRISES, L.P. AND THOMAS, L.P., Appellee s On Appeal from the 193r d Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 11
- 14157 

### O RDER Before the Court are two January 8, 2015 motions of appellees Calitex Corporation, Elshir Enterprises, L.P., and Thomas, L.P.: (1) “Motion for Leave to File Motion to Show Cause in Trial Court” and (2) “Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” Specifically, a ppellees seek leave from this Court to file a “Motion for Contempt of Court or, in the Alternative, Motion to Show Cause” in the trial court “so a hearing may be conducted on th e whereabouts of an $812,861.34 certificate of deposit deposited into the registry of the Dallas County Clerk in lieu of a supersedeas bond” in this case. Additionally, a ppellees seek “ the extraordinary relief of dismissal of the instant appeal in an effo rt to mitigate further irreparable harm to the [a]ppellees.” Appellant has filed responses opposing both motions of appellees. Appellant contend s in part that rule 24 .3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure “provides an appropriate remedyfor [a]ppe llees ” and “does not require leave of the court of appeals. ” S ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 24

. 3. Further, appellant asserts “[a]ppellees cite no authority for the proposition that this Court can, or should, dismiss an appeal because a Receiver has, in accordance w ith the order of the court appointing him, withdrawn security posted in lieu of a supersedeas bond.” “Any litigant may appeal without superseding the trial court’s judgment, but the mere pendency of an appeal does not stay enforcement of the judgment .” Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd. , 852 S.W.2d 440, 449 (Tex. 1993). Unless the law or the rules of appellate procedure provide otherwise, a judgment debtor may supersede the judgment by, among other methods, “making a deposit with the trial c ourt clerk in lieu of a bond.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 24.1.
We note Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.3 (a) provides , (a) Continuing Jurisdiction . Even after the trial court’s plenary power expires, the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to do the fol lowing: (1) order the amount and type of security and decide the sufficiency of sureties; and (2) if circumstances change, modify the amount or type of security required to continue the suspension of a judgment’s execution.
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 24. 3(a) (empha sis original).
A ppellees do not address rule 24.3(a) or explain why, in light of that rule, they require leave of this Court to pursue appropriate relief in the trial court. See id . Further, appellees cite no authority, and we have found none, supporti ng their position that dismissal of this appeal is appropriate on the facts alleged by them.
We DENY appellees’ January 8, 2015 “Motion for Leave to File Motion to Show Cause in Trial Court” and “Motion to Dismiss Appeal.”
/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE