alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 137-002 California]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Mokelumne River Hydroelectric Project, a complex of multiple reservoirs, diversions, conduits, and powerhouses on the North Fork Mokelumne River, east of Sacramento, California in Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras Counties and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the project. The project occupies federal lands managed by the USDA Forest Service (Eldorado and Stanislaus National Forests) and the USDI Bureau of Land Management.

The FEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Copies of the FEA are available for review at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The FEA may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for assistance).

For further information, contact Jim Fargo (202) 219-2848.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-12951  Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3317]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on January 8, 2001, I find that the following Counties in the State of Texas constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by a severe winter ice storm beginning on December 12, 2000 and continuing: Bowie, Cass and Red River Counties. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on March 9, 2001, and for loans for economic injury until the close of business on October 9, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Fort Worth, TX 76155. In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Delta, Franklin, Hopkins, Lamar, Marion, Morris and Titus Counties in Texas; Caddo County in Louisiana; Choctaw and McCurtain Counties in Oklahoma. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners with credit available elsewhere
7.000Homeowners without credit available elsewhere
3.500Businesses with credit available elsewhere
8.000Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
4.000Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere
7.000For Economic Injury:Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 331711. For economic injury the numbers are 9K3700 for Texas, 9K3800 for Louisiana, 9K3900 for Oklahoma. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008.) Dated: January 10, 2001. Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 01-1323 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
#### Rommell RIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John WOLFE, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 13-6144.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

Rommell A. Riggins, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rommell Riggins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 *228U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Riggins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Riggins’ motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# C_2019230EN.01001601.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stadt Euskirchen v Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-253/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 5(1) and (2) - Direct award - Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and by tram - Conditions - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 12 - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 28)

(2019/C 230/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadt Euskirchen

Defendant: Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

Joined parties: SVE Stadtverkehr Euskirchen GmbH, RVK Regionalverkehr Köln GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to the direct award of contracts relating to public passenger transport services by bus which do not take the form of service concessions contracts within the meaning of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, Pieter Muntendam, M.D., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of BG Medicine, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: October 4, 2011



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Pieter Muntendam, M.D.                                         
|Pieter Muntendam, M.D.                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)
H. R. 1844 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 66 Grove 

Court in Elgin, Illinois, as the ‘‘Corporal Alex Martinez Memorial Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CORPORAL ALEX MARTINEZ MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 66 Grove Court in Elgin, Illinois, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Corporal Alex Martinez Memorial Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Corporal Alex Martinez Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.1




SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION (CEO) 1350




CHINA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.




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 China Automotive Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Qizhou Wu, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and President of the Company, 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: June 28, 2011
By:
/s/ Qizhou WuQizhou WuChief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

OREN SNOWDEN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-3901

D.C. No.

2:18-cr-00018-RCJ-GWF-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 17, 2024**

Before: CANBY, PAEZ, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. 

Oren Snowden appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. 

Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2022), we affirm.

* 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

JUN 21 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-3901

Snowden contends that the district court erred by failing to treat his diabetes 

and chronic kidney disease, along with the increased threat of contracting COVID19 in prison, as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. 

He suggests that the court may not have reviewed his medical records and thus 

may have relied on clearly erroneous facts concerning his health. Finally, he 

argues that the district court erred in its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors because it improperly relied on old convictions to conclude he

remains a danger to the community and it “should have concluded that the term of 

imprisonment that Mr. Snowden has already served is sufficient to satisfy the 

purposes of sentencing.” 

Snowden’s speculation about the district court’s review of his medical 

records is belied by the court’s order, which shows its familiarity with Snowden’s

health conditions and his arguments. But, even assuming the district court should 

have treated Snowden’s medical conditions as extraordinary and compelling—

which the government concedes in light of the 2023 amendment to U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13—Snowden has not shown any abuse of discretion in the court’s 

independent § 3553(a) analysis. See Wright, 46 F.4th at 947-48 (holding that an 

erroneous application of § 1B1.13 is harmless if the court’s § 3553(a) analysis 

independently supports the denial of relief). Snowden’s assertions that his criminal 

history is outdated and that he has served enough time are “mere disagreements” 
3 23-3901

with how the district court weighed the § 3553(a) factors and do not show an abuse 

of discretion. See id. at 948. 

We do not address Snowden’s argument that we should “review” his 

conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). Even assuming this argument can be raised in compassionate release 

proceedings, which we do not decide, Snowden did not raise it in the district court 

or in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 

2009).

AFFIRMED.
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 40-5 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 40-5 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 2 of 2
# C_2020054EN.01000302.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.P.

(Case C-380/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Article 6 - Entry conditions for third-country nationals - Concept of ‘threat to public policy’ - Return decision issued to an illegally staying third-country national)

(2020/C 54/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Respondent: E.P.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice under which the competent authorities may issue a return decision to a third-country national not subject to a visa requirement, who is present on the territory of the Member States for a short stay, on the basis of the fact that that national is considered to be a threat to public policy because he or she is suspected of having committed a criminal offence, provided that that practice is applicable only if, first, the offence is sufficiently serious, in the light of its nature and of the punishment which may be imposed, to justify that national’s stay on the territory of the Member States being brought to an immediate end and, second, those authorities have consistent, objective and specific evidence to support their suspicions, matters which are for the referring court to establish.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---
**Exhibit 4.36**

 

**Equity participation in Renova: summary of the Investment Agreement**

 

On August 8, 2013 Cemig GT signed an Investment Agreement with Light Energia, RR Participações and Renova governing, among other matters, entry of Cemig GT into the controlling stockholding block of Renova, through subscription by Cemig GT of 87,186,035 new common shares to be issued by Renova.

 

The equity interest held by Cemig GT in Renova will be between 24.5% and 35.7% of the voting stock, representing between 20.2% and 27.4% of the total share capital, depending on the exercise of first refusal rights by existing stockholders.

 

Completion of the entry into the share capital of Renova, and actual transfer of shares, was made conditional upon certain conditions precedent, including consent of Renova’s creditors, consent from Aneel, and approval of the transaction by the Brazilian Monopolies Authority (*Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica*, or Cade).

 

On February 20, 2014, after compliance with the conditions precedent and in accordance with the Investment Agreement, the Board of Directors of Renova approved the amount of the capital increase to be subscribed by Cemig GT, in the amount of R$ 1.550 billion. Subscription and full payment for the shares in Renova is expected to take place by July 29, 2014.

 

Under the Investment Agreement, Cemig GT may participate in the equity of Renova either by itself, or by a special-purpose company in which Cemig GT has 50% of the common shares and an Equity Investment Fund (a ‘*Fundo de Investimento em Participações*’, or FIP) holds the remaining 50%. If the transaction is shared with an FIP, the interest of Cemig GT, and the value of the acquisition, will be reduced.

 

----
# Exhibit 5.1



January 9, 2007



Puget Energy, Inc.

10885 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 1200

Bellevue, Washington 98004



Re:
        Registration Statement on Form S-3


Ladies and Gentlemen:



We are acting as counsel for Puget Energy, Inc. (the Company) in connection with the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (the Registration Statement), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, relating to the offering, as set forth in the prospectus contained in the Registration Statement (the Prospectus), of the Companys shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share (the Shares). The Shares are to be issued from time to time pursuant to the Companys Amended and Restated Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the Plan). The Plan replaces and assumes, by amendment and restatement, the Puget Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan that was established in September 2002. We have examined the Registration Statement and such documents and
records of the Company and other documents as we have deemed necessary for the purposes of this opinion. Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that upon the happening of the following events:



(a)
        the filing and effectiveness of the Registration Statement and any amendments thereof,


(b)
        the appropriate issuance
and delivery of the Shares to the purchaser or purchasers thereof in accordance with the terms of the Plan, including the due
execution by the Company of any certificates representing the Shares and the registration by its registrar of the Shares, and


(c)
        the receipt by the
Company of the consideration for the Shares in accordance with the terms of the Plan,


the Shares will be duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

---

Puget Energy, Inc.

January 9, 2007

Page 2



We consent to the filing of this opinion as an
exhibit to the Registration Statement and any amendment thereto, including any post-effective amendments. We also consent to the
identification of our firm as counsel to the Company in the section of the Prospectus (which is a part of the Registration
Statement) entitled Legal Opinion. In giving such consent, we do not hereby admit that we are in the category of
persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act.

Very truly yours,

/s/   Perkins Coie LLP







---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27970-27971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12630]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 14, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. First National Bank Group, Inc., Edinburg, Texas; to acquire 51 
percent of the voting shares of Alamo Corporation of Texas, Alamo, 
Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire Alamo Bank of Texas, Alamo, 
Texas.

[[Page 27971]]

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 15, 2001.


Robert deV. Frierson
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-12630 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S