alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28453-28454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12958]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-416-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corp.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

May 17, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 14, 2001, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective June 
14, 2001:

1st Rev Third Revised Sheet No. 255
1st Rev Third Revised Sheet No. 256

    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to propose 
revisions to Northwest's tariff to provide for the equitable sharing of 
lateral facility costs between a shipper for whom a lateral facility 
was initially constructed and a third-party shipper that has requested 
service on a relatively inexpensive expansion of the original lateral 
facility.
    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Northwest's customers and upon interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for

[[Page 28454]]

assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12958 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-07-M
| (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 15, 2010 | By:    /s/ Patrick D. Souter    |                        |
|                     |                                                          | Patrick D. Souter           |   |
|                     |                                                          | Chief Executive Officer,    |   |
|                     |                                                          | and Chief Financial Officer |   |
#### John Williams *versus*Nymphas Turner *& al.*

By St. 1835, o. 195,, § 10, two justices of the peace and of the quorum have authority to examine the notification to the creditor, and to administer the oath to the debtor.

A certificate by two justices of the peace, quorum unus, that the debtor has taken the poor debtor’s oath, &c. is a nullity — they not having jurisdiction.

This was an acti'on of debt on a bond, dated May 18,1838, given by the defendant as principal, in conformity to an “ act supplementary to an act for the relief of poor debtors,” passed April 2,‘ 1836, and was submitted to the Court upon the following statement of facts:—

The defendants introduced the certificate of two justices of the peace and quorum unus, in the usual form, and duly filed in the gaoler’s office, by which it appeared that due notice had been given the creditor, and that the oath had been administered to the principal debtor.

*J. A. H. V. Poor,*for the plaintiff.

*S. H. Blake,*for the defendants.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Weston C. J.

By referring to the Statute conferring on two justices the power to examine the notification to the creditor, and to administer to the debtor the oath therein prescribed, it will be found to have been given to two justices of the peace and of the quorum. Statute of 1835, c. 195, § 10. Both are required to be of the quorum. Had the language been, two justices *quorum unus,*which occurs in another section of the same Statute, it would have been sufficient that one of them should have been of the quorum. *Gilbert*v. *Sweetser,*4 Greenl. 483.

Only one of the. justices, who officiated on this occasion, was of the quorum. This is a fatal objection. They had, no jurisdiction either to examine the notification, or to administer the oath. The defence therefore is not sustained.

*Judgment for the plaintiff.*
152 So. 54

#### BRIDGES v. STATE.

6 Div. 465.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 2, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1934.

*73See, also, 225 Ala. 81, 142 So. 56.

Crampton Harris, Albert Boutwell, and Port, Beddow & Ray, all of Birmingham, for petitioner.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

POSTER, Justice.

Petition of R. A. Bridges for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Bridges v. State, 152 So. 51.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

On Rehearing.

POSTER, Justice.

We have again carefully reconsidered all the contentions made by petitioner for error in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and still think that it correctly disposed of all questions there treated, and the discussion respecting them, except we think that charge 41 is covered by charge 40, reference to which is made by petitioner, and was refused without error for that reason rather than on the ground that it is argumentative.

Application for rehearing overruled.

ANDERSON, C. J., GARDNER and BQULDIN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28762-28764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13075]


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

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Cumulative Report on Rescissions and Deferrals

May 1, 2001.
    Section 1014(e) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires a monthly report listing all 
budget authority for the current fiscal year for which, as of the first 
day of the month, a special message had been transmitted to Congress.
    This report gives the status, as of May 1, 2001, of two deferrals 
contained in one special message for FY 2001. The message was 
transmitted to Congress on January 18, 2001.

Deferrals (Attachments A and B)

    As of May 1, 2001, $1.5 billion in budget authority was being 
deferred from obligation. Attachment B shows the status of each 
deferral reported during FY 2001.

Information From Special Message

    The special message containing information on the deferrals that 
are covered by this cumulative report is printed in the edition of the 
Federal Register cited below: 66 FR 8985, Monday, February 5, 2001.

Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
Director.

Attachment A

                       Status of FY 2001 Deferrals
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budgetary
                                                              resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deferrals proposed by the President........................      1,946.7
Routine Executive releases through May 1, 2001.............       -408.5
Overturned by the Congress.................................  ...........
                                                            ------------
Currently before the Congress..............................      1,538.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------


BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 28763]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY01.001


[[Page 28764]]


[FR Doc. 01-13075 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aaron Alberto BARRIOS-QUIROZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-41197

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 10, 2013.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defen-danh-Appellant.

*261Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Aaron Alberto Barrios-Quiroz pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry and was sentenced to serve 58 months and 16 days in prison. We are now presented with his appeal of his sentence. Consistent with his arguments in the district court, he contends that his prior Texas conviction for indecency with a child does not qualify as a crime of violence (COV) for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines and that the district court erred by treating it as such. He acknowledges that this issue has previously been decided adversely to him but raises it to preserve it for possible further review.

Under Barrios-Quiroz’s view, the disputed conviction is not a COV because the Texas statute of conviction does not align with the generic, contemporary definition of sexual abuse of a minor since it sets the age of consent higher than most. This argument is unavailing. *See United States v. Rodriguez,*711 F.3d 541, 562-63 & n. 28 (5th Cir.2013) (en banc).

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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elijah Cummings, Appellant.

Submitted March 1, 2010;

decided March 25, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, *788Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
# C_2018022EN.01005002.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/50

---

Action brought on 14 November 2017 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Beats Electronics (i.Beat jess)

(Case T-749/17)

(2018/C 022/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber, A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘i.Beat jess’– EU trade mark No 4 728 895

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 in Case R 2234/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it upholds the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation and revokes the Applicant’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 4 728 895; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it upholds the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation and revokes the Applicant’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 4 728 895;

| — | dismiss the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
# C_2017402EN.01004601.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/46

---

Action brought on 22 September 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint)

(Case T-651/17)

(2017/C 402/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design of a ‘spray gun for paint’; Community design No 1259626-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 914/2016-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and — if applicable — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools Co. Ltd to jointly and severely pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and — if applicable — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools Co. Ltd to jointly and severely pay all the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 6.1(b), 6.2, 60.1, 62 and 64 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 6.1(b), 6.2, 60.1, 62 and 64 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2109 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2109

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs, in awarding a contract for the procurement of goods 
  or services, to give a preference to offerors that employ veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2019

    Miss Rice of New York (for herself and Mr. Cook) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs, in awarding a contract for the procurement of goods 
  or services, to give a preference to offerors that employ veterans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Boosting Rates of American Veteran 
Employment Act'' or the ``BRAVE Act''.

SEC. 2. PREFERENCE FOR OFFERORS EMPLOYING VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 81 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding after section 8128 the following new 
section:
``Sec. 8129. Preference for offerors employing veterans
    ``(a) Preference.--In awarding a contract for the procurement of 
goods or services, the Secretary may give a preference to offerors that 
employ veterans on a full-time basis. The Secretary shall determine 
such preference based on the percentage of the full-time employees of 
the offeror who are veterans.
    ``(b) Enforcement Penalties for Misrepresentation.--(1) Any offeror 
that is determined by the Secretary to have willfully and intentionally 
misrepresented the veteran status of the employees of the offeror for 
purposes of subsection (a) may be debarred from contracting with the 
Department for a period of not less than five years.
    ``(2) If the Secretary carries out a debarment under paragraph (1), 
the Secretary shall commence debarment action against the offeror by 
not later than 30 days after determining that the offeror willfully and 
intentionally misrepresented the veteran status of the employees of the 
offeror as described in paragraph (1) and shall complete debarment 
actions against such offeror by not later than 90 days after such 
determination.
    ``(3) The debarment of an offeror under paragraph (1) includes the 
debarment of all principals in the offeror for a period of not less 
than five years.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
8128 the following new item:

``8129. Preference for offerors employing veterans.''.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6835** 

SHAIN CLAUDE COLLINS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad , Chief District Judge. ( 7:13

- cv - 00474

- GEC )

Submitted : November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.

Shain Claude Collins , Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shain Claude Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Collins argued in his notice of appeal, and the record suggests, that he did not timely receive notice o f the entry of the district court’s order, and further requested a reopening of the appeal period.

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A). Because the 30

- day appeal period is jurisdictional, Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214
(2007), we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether to reopen the time to file an appeal, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

REMANDED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo REYES-OSORTO, aka Javier Canada-Domingo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30461.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*629Submitted June 7, 2006.*

Filed June 9, 2006.

Elizabeth A. Horsman, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Evangelo Arvanetes, Esq., FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Reyes-Osorto pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced him to a period of 87 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Reyes-Osorto appeals the reasonableness of his sentence in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

The parties are familiar with the facts of the case. We need not repeat them here.

We review a *post-Booker*sentence for reasonableness even if the sentence is within the Guidelines range. *United States v. Plouffe,*436 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2006), *amended by*445 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.2006); *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1075, 1079 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Reyes-Osorto argues the district court imposed a sentence that was “greater than necessary” to achieve the goals of sentencing in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The sentencing judge made his decision “[pjursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a), and after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements.” In light of Reyes-Osorto’s criminal history and repeated reentry after deportation, the sentencing judge was concerned that Reyes-Osorto is “a danger to society” and sentenced him to the high end of the range. The sentencing judge amply considered the § 3553(a) factors, the Guidelines and Reyes-Osorto’s arguments at sentencing. Sentencing ReyesOsorto to the high end of the Guidelines range was not unreasonable under the circumstances.

Reyes-Osorto also asserts the imposed sentence is unreasonable because he was treated more harshly than similarly situated defendants in the Southern District of California, the Eastern District of California and the Eastern District of Washington, which use “fast-track” sentencing. Sentencing disparities due to the use of fast-track sentencing procedures in certain districts do not make a sentence unreasonable. *United States v. MarciaUSantiago,*447 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.