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

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15855]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-408-001]

East Tennessee Natural Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 19, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 14, 2001, East Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to be 
effective on June 4, 2001:

Second Revised Volume No. 1
Sub Third Revised Sheet No. 177

    East Tennessee states that the purpose of this filing is to comply 
with the directives of the Commission's Letter Order dated May 30, 
2001, in Docket No. RP01-408 (May 30 Order).
    East Tennessee states that, on May 4, 2001, revised tariff sheets 
were filed in this docket in order to add a new Section 46 to its 
General Terms and Conditions that provides for transportation and 
storage services using off-system capacity acquired by East Tennessee 
on other pipelines and requested a waiver of the Commission's ``shipper 
must have title'' policy with respect to off-system capacity.
    East Tennessee states that the May 30 Order accepted East 
Tennessee's May 4 tariff filing, effective June 4, 2001, subject to the 
condition that East Tennessee file, within fifteen days of the May 30 
Order, a revised tariff sheet to reflect the changes required by the 
May 30 Order.
    East Tennessee states that copies of its filing have been mailed to 
all affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests will 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. 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 
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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15855 Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Sean Anthony LAWRENCE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6935.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 10, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23

- 1753

Lower Tribunal No. AHHCH8E

________________



### William Craig Thomas

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An a ppeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Robin Faber

, Judge.

William Craig Thomas, in proper person

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee

.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Jesse VASQUEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7259.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### Mohamed Hamood HUMRAN, aka Mohammed Hamood Humran Nagi, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-75097.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 4, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 6, 2010.

Carol A. Dvorkin, Esquire, Law Firm of Carol A. Dvorkin, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*213Before: BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Mohamed Hamood Humran, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen because his prior counsel had not been retained to provide the services that Petitioner claimed counsel failed to perform, including the filing of a petition for review with this court. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 900-01 (9th Cir.2003) (incompetent representation where counsel failed to prepare and file suspension of deportation application in accordance with agreement). It follows that Petitioner’s due process challenge fails. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
II-00899

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elaine Laisure <elaisure@hotmail. corn>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:14 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Tired of Wall Street Taking the WORLD Economies Down and us poor and middle class paying for it. These bankers should

be in jail; not gambling our futures away.

Elaine Laisure

296 Bishop Dr

Weatherford, TX 76088
Oral SEKENDUR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, ex rel. Glenn McCANDLISS.

No. 16-6399.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2009193EN.01001001.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 June 2009 — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-199/09)

2009/C 193/12

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schenker SIA

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to an application for binding tariff information, binding information must be issued on identical goods, which share the same commercial denomination, article number or any other criterion which distinguishes or identifies the goods concerned?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

1

---
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00384 - CR

ALICIA ELIZABETH FOR D APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRI CT COURT NO. 3 OF TA RRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1405 276

---------- 

### MEMORA NDUM OPINION 1

---------- On November 9, 2015, we notified Appellant Alicia Elizabeth Ford of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over her attempt to appeal the trial court’s October 6, 2015 order supplementing or amending her conditions of community

1 S ee Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

supe rv ision. 2 See Davis v. State , 195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“There is no legislative authority for entertaining a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions of community supervision.”); Helms v. State , No s . 02

- 14

- 00170

- CR, 02

- 14

- 00 171

- CR, 2014 WL 3778283, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 31, 2014 , no pet. ) (mem. op., not designated for publication). W e informed Ford that the appeal may be dismissed unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing gro unds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We have not received a response. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. PER CURIAM PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: February 25 , 2016

2 The trial court’s certification of Ford’s right to appeal states that it involves

“ another ” order

— an “Amendment to Conditions of Community Supervision dated 10

- 6

- 15. No Right of Appeal.”
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1238 

Directing the Secretary of the Interior to transmit to the House of Representatives certain information relating to the Secretary’s Treasured Landscape Initiative, designation of National Monuments, and high priority 

land-rationalization efforts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2010 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself and Mr. BISHOP of Utah) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Directing the Secretary of the Interior to transmit to the 

House of Representatives certain information relating to 

the Secretary’s Treasured Landscape Initiative, designation of National Monuments, and high priority landrationalization efforts. 

1 Resolved, That the Secretary of Interior is directed 

2 to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later 

3 than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolu4 tion, copies of all Department of the Interior documents, 

5 maps, records (including electronic records), communica6 tions and other information from July 1, 2009, and later 

7 referring to or relating to— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1238 IH 

1 (1) potential National Monument designations 

2 under the Antiquities Act; 

3 (2) the document containing ‘‘Attachment 4 

4 Prospective Conservation Designation: National 

5 Monument Designations under the Antiquities Act’’ 

6 and marked ‘‘Internal Draft—NOT FOR RE7 LEASE’’, including that document in full, all at8 tachments in full, and all iterations of that docu9 ment, and related similar documents; 

10 (3) any ‘‘brainstorming’’ sessions relating to the 

11 Secretary’s Treasured Landscape Initiative, designa12 tion of National Monuments, and high priority land13 rationalization efforts, including any documents pre14 pared for or distributed at the sessions, a list of all 

15 participants, attendees, and invitees, notes taken at 

16 the sessions, and any memoranda, work products, 

17 and follow-up documents produced as a result of the 

18 sessions; and 

19 (4) any other meetings, communications, or dis20 cussions with private groups, individuals, or entities 

21 who are not employees of the Department of the In22 terior where the Secretary’s Treasured Landscape 

23 Initiative, designation of National Monuments, and 

24 high priority land-rationalization efforts were disVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:26 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1238.IH HR1238

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1238 IH 

1 cussed, including all notes, agendas, and memo2 randa. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Clinton BURNS, III, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6161.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of Secured Services,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert Skinner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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.

         A signed  original of this written  statement  has been provided to the
Company and will be retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Dated: November 21, 2005

                                 /s/ Robert Skinner
                                 ----------------------
                                 Robert Skinner
                                 Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010024EN.01004301.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/43

---

Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-491/09)

2010/C 24/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Sénéchal and S. La Pergola, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for fully transposing the directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for fully transposing the directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of the directive;

1

| — | order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing Directive 2007/63/CE expired on 31 December 2008. At the time the present action was lodged, the defendant had not yet adopted the necessary measures for the implementation of this directive, or had in any case not notified the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ L 300, 17.11.2007, p. 47

1

---
# C_2010317EN.01001001.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Uszodaépítő kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

(Case C-392/09) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input tax - New national legislation - Requirements as to the content of an invoice - Retroactive application - Loss of the right to deduct)

2010/C 317/18

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Baranya Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uszodaépítő kft

Applicant:

Defendant: APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Interpretation of Articles 17 and 20 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and the general principles of Community law — New national legislation on VAT giving taxable persons the right to opt for its application, even retroactively, to cases in progress on the date of its entry into force — Application with retroactive effect, failing which the right to deduct is lost, of the new provisions regarding the requirements as to the contents of the invoice

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding the retroactive application of national legislation which, in the context of a reverse charge regime, makes the deduction of value added tax relating to construction works conditional upon the amendment of invoices for those services and the submission of a supplementary, amending tax declaration, while the tax authority concerned has all the information necessary to establish that the taxable person is, as the recipient of the supply of services at issue, liable to value added tax, and to ascertain the amount of tax deductible.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

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 Adolor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas P.
Hess, Chief Financial Officer 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.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ THOMAS P. HESS                    
|Thomas P. Hess Chief Financial Officer

February 27, 2007
# C_2010024EN.01002802.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo no 3 de La Coruna (Spain) lodged on 16 November 2009 — Rosa María Gaviero Gaviero v Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria

o

(Case C-444/09)

2010/C 24/52

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo No 3 of La Coruna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rosa María Gaviero Gaviero

Applicant:

Defendant: Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria (Galicia)

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

What is the meaning of the phrase ‘different length-of service qualifications’ in Clause 4(4) of the Framework agreement in the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC (1), and is the mere fact of the temporary nature of the employment relationship of those serving as public employees an ‘objective ground’ which may justify a difference in treatment as regards receipt of the length of service increment?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ L 175, 10.7.1999)

1

---
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 2, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-2191 Lower Tribunal No. 13-13632

________________ Jose Andres Raffo, Appellant,
vs. Monica M. Menendez, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge. Law Offices of Alfaro & Fernandez, P.A., and Elbert Alfaro, for appellant. Law Offices of Gonzalez & Associates, LLC, and Alexis Gonzalez, for appellee. Before EMAS, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (providing that a trial court may modify a parenting plan upon a showing of a substantial, material and unanticipated change in circumstances, and modification is in the best interests of the child); George v. Lull, 181 So. 3d 538, 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“[T]he petitioning party has the extraordinary burden to prove the substantial change in circumstances.”); Ezra v. Ezra, 299 So. 3d at 466, 468- 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020 (recognizing that the standard of review for modifying a parenting plan is abuse of discretion and concluding that “the decision [of the trial court] to afford the mother the sole parental responsibility for educational and medical needs of the children is well-supported by competent, substantial evidence.”).