alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Timely Filing of Civil Penalty Cases 

Written by LCDR Michele Bouziane

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: the purpose of the civil penalty 

process is to seek: 

1) compliance with regulatory requirements, and 

2) deterrence of violations of the regulations. In other words, the process is 

remedial, not punitive.

It stands to reason, then, that the sooner the charging unit submits a civil 

penalty case, the sooner the charged party will be prompted to achieve 

compliance with the regulation(s) s/he is alleged to have violated.

In some cases, such as oil pollution cases, compliance may not be an option. 

For example, the vessel or facility may already have leaked oil which has 

discharged into navigable U.S. waters. Deterrence of future discharges may be 

the only achievable outcome.

Suppose your unit delays forwarding oil pollution cases against a party, and 

then sends the Hearing Office five oil pollution cases against the same party 

with alleged violation dates spanning a period of months or years. The Coast 

Guard has lost the possibility of deterring the party from committing the latter 

four violations by taking timely and effective civil penalty action in the first 

case.

Remember, however, that it’s not “officially” a violation until it has been 

completely adjudicated. In other words, when the Coast Guard’s final agency 

action on a civil penalty case results in a finding that the party has committed a 

violation, the violation then properly can be considered part of the charged 

party’s violation history. 

The Coast Guard, as a marine safety agency, can more effectively achieve its 

remedial goals and have a greater impact on a party’s behavior if civil penalty 

cases are submitted to the Hearing Office in a timely manner.
Order entered October 23 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00924
- CV DAX STEVENS, Appellant

V. DARYL LAUHOFF, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at L aw No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 14
- 06376
- C



### O RDER The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated August 30, 2019, we notified the Dallas County Clerk that the clerk’s record was overdue. We directed the County Clerk to file the record within thirty days. To date, the County Clerk has not filed the clerk’s record nor otherwise responded to our notice. Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the c lerk’s record, or (2) written verification that appellant is not entitled to proceed without payment of costs and has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We notify appellant that if we receive verification he is not entitled to procee d without payment of costs and has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record, we will, without further notice, dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to:

John Warren Dallas C ounty Clerk All parties

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 24-0004 

IN RE THE PETITION OF 

BRIANA KAY SMITH ORDER 

Briana Kay Smith has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State 

Bar of Montana after having been on inactive status since March 2021. 

IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of 

Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in the state of Montana. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order, 

Petitioner shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal Education, P.O. Box 577, Helena, 

MT 59624, proof of attendance at thirty hours of approved Continuing Legal Education to 

be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this 16th day of June, 2024. 

FILED 

JUN 13 2024 

Sower% Cire-envvood 

Clerl< of Supreme Court 

Slate of 0.eloritaria 

For the Court, 

By 

06/13/2024

Case Number: PR 24-0004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                        (26,187)
<SECURITIES>                                       963
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,822,669
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,355,455
<PP&E>                                         669,429
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,797,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,087,276
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,797,243
<SALES>                                      8,693,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,693,918
<CGS>                                        8,481,834
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,809,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (134,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (45,900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (89,094)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (89,094)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I53S-W

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 11-12-00318-CR OFFENSE: 22.02

Bruce Todd Benson v.

STYLE: The State of Texas COUNTY: Stonewall

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 39th District Court

DATE: 10/16/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1885

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Bruce Todd Benson v.

style: The State of Texas

APPBlLANT^ Petition

cca#: PD-1535-14

CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

%£Fus£D JUDGE:

DATE: Oa-lotffjLO'r

JUDGE: r<IH (Jua+4»—

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
#### In the Matter of Jesse Jenkins, Appellant, v David Gunn, as President of the New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Gunn as President of the New York City Transit Authority, dated October 30, 1985, made after a hearing, which dismissed the petitioner from his position as a conductor, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated April 9, 1987, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petition fails to state facts sufficient to entitle the petitioner to the relief sought. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

      ( print page 20522)    

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Pacific-Northwest Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in Bethel, Alaska. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Friday April 28, 2000 and Saturday April 29, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lori M. Dupuis at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held Friday April 28, 2000, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturday April 29, 2000, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the KVNA Building, 841 River Street, Bethel, Alaska. 

The public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 10 minutes. If you would like to have the CAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write Lori M. Dupuis, CAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, Room 442, Seattle, WA 98174. Due to limited conference space, notification of intent to attend the meeting must be made with Lori M. Dupuis. Ms. Dupuis can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096. 

The Agenda will include the following: various IRS issue updates and reports by the CAP sub-groups. 

# Note:

Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.

Dated: April 4, 2000. 

Cathy VanHorn, 

Director, Communication and Liaison, Taxpayer Advocate Service. 

[FR Doc. 00-9411 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2021196EN.01001901.xml

| 25.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/19

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 196/07)

| Member State | Spain |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Melilla – Almeria/Granada/Sevilla |
| Reopening date of the PSO routes to community air carriers | 1.1.2022 |
| Address where the text and any other information or documentation related to the public service obligations can be obtained. | Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda
  Urbana





  Dirección General de Aviación Civil |
| Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo |
| Paseo de la Castellana 67 |
| 28071 Madrid |
| ESPAÑA |

Member State

Spain

Route concerned

Melilla – Almeria/Granada/Sevilla

Reopening date of the PSO routes to community air carriers

1.1.2022

Address where the text and any other information or documentation related to the public service obligations can be obtained.

Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda

Urbana

Dirección General de Aviación Civil

Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo

Paseo de la Castellana 67

28071 Madrid

ESPAÑA

Tel. +34 915977837

Fax +34 915978643

Email address:osp.dgac@mitma.es

The routes subject to public service obligations may be operated on the basis of free competition access as from 1 January 2022. In the event that no air carrier submits a program of services compliant with the public service obligations imposed, access will be restricted from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022 to a single air carrier through the corresponding public tender procedure, in accordance with Article 16 (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1).

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10726

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

MARIO MUNOZ-GARCIA, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:16-CR-8-1 

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Munoz-Garcia pleaded guilty to one count of being illegally 

present in the United States following deportation. The district court found 

that Munoz-Garcia’s criminal history category was underrepresented and 

imposed a 72-month sentence, above the advisory guidelines range of 46-57 

months in prison, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. In 

his only argument on appeal, Munoz-Garcia asserts that because the 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10726 Document: 00513894979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2017
No. 16-10726

2 

indictment did not allege his prior aggravated felony conviction, his sentence, 

which exceeded the two-year statutory maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a), constituted a violation of his due process rights. He concedes that 

his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 

(1998), but he maintains that the reasoning of this case has been called into 

question by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United 

States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). 

The Government has filed a motion for a summary affirmance or, 

alternatively, for an extension of time to file a merits brief. Summary 

affirmance is proper when, among other instances, “the position of one of the 

parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial 

question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 

406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

As Munoz-Garcia concedes, his due process argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres. Although Apprendi and Alleyne require that facts 

increasing the statutory maximum or minimum sentence must be submitted 

to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they have preserved an 

exception for prior convictions. Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2160-64 & n.1; Apprendi, 

530 U.S. at 489-90. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 

 Case: 16-10726 Document: 00513894979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2017
#### William Allen, Administrator v. Josiah Traylor.

Where there was a mere clerical error in the writ, which might have been amended, but the defendant was silent in the court below and permitted judgment to go by default, he cannot be heard to urge the mistake in the court above.

He who was silent in the court below, where he ought to have spoken, and has thus permitted the opportunity of making his defense to pass, ought not to be first heard in this court.

Error from Jasper. The case was tried before Hon. Samuel A. Wilson, one of the district judges.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court..

Ho briefs have been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Morrill, O. J.

—Petition was filed March 7,1867. Process thereon was dated February 8,1867, and issued March 8, 1867; came to the hands of the sheriff March 18, and executed the 21st of the same month. Judgment by default April 5.

The cause has been brought to this court by error, and the errors assigned are—

1. Defendant had no legal notice.

2. The citation was not directed in the manner prescribed by law.

3. The citation was issued before the petition was filed.

4. The citation was tested, issued, dated, signed, and sealed on February 8, 1867, and the petition was not filed till March 7, 1867.

We have examined the record, and the only irregularity is, that the clerk, after receiving and filing the petition on March 7, prepared the original process, which he dated February 8, but issued it on March 8. The clerical mistake is evident, for we cannot suppose a party could have any inducement to. get a citation to be made, signed, and *125dated a month before it was designed to he used or was used.

But even if it were doubtful that there was a mistake, and, to go one step further, admitting that it was dated properly, as it was not issued from the office until the day after the petition was filed, it was not such an irregularity as could not be cured by an amendment, had the attention of the district court been called to it.

We repeat what this court has said in similar cases:

“He who was silent in the court below, where he ought to have spoken, and has thus permitted the opportunity of making his defense to pass by, ought not to be first heard in this court.” (Hopkins v. Donoho, 4 Tex., 338.)

Judgment aeeirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Whitted, Appellant.

The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to permit a rational trier of facts to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see, *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). The mere existence of conflicting evidence did not preclude the defendant’s conviction *(see, People v Kennedy,*47 NY2d 196) and the jury’s findings on the issues of credibility are to be accorded the greatest weight on appeal *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32


                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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of IDX Systems Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, James H. Crook, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
John A. Kane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.




Dated: November 4, 2003                 /s/  JAMES H. CROOK, JR.
                                        -------------------------------
                                        James H. Crook, Jr.
                                        Chief Executive Officer




Dated: November 4, 2003                /s/  JOHN A. KANE
                                       --------------------------------
                                       John A. Kane
                                       Sr. Vice President, Finance and
                                       Administration,
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2433 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2433

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 
                 enhancing combination products review.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 
                 enhancing combination products review.

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

SECTION 1. ENHANCING COMBINATION PRODUCTS REVIEW.

    Section 503(g)(4)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(21 U.S.C. 353(g)(4)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new clause:
            ``(iii) Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
        enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act, the Secretary shall 
        issue final guidance that describes the responsibilities of 
        each agency center regarding its review of combination 
        products. The Secretary shall, after soliciting public comment, 
        review and update the guidance periodically.''.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 26, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60632 Summary Calendar

MEI HUA CHEN, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A98 880 761)

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioner Mei Hua Chen seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied her motion to reopen removal proceedings. In April 2005, an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Chen removed in absentia. In March 2006, after two prior motions to reopen had been denied, Chen filed her third motion to reopen. The BIA denied Chen’s third motion to reopen as numerically barred pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and also noted that, even if the motion were not number barred, it would be denied for failing to establish a claim of ineffective assistance2

of counsel. Chen argues that the BIA erred in finding that she had not established a claim of ineffective as sistance of counsel and that, as a result, the BIA abused its discretion in finding her motion numerically barred. As Chen previously filed two other motions to reopen, her third motion to reopen was barred by the numerical limitation set forth in § 1003.2(c)(2), which permits only one motion to reopen. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen. See Lara v. Trominski , 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, we agree with the BIA’s observation regarding Chen’s failure to establish a viable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Chen’s petition for review is DENIED.