alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J.R. MCFARLANE, D.C. KING, D.A. NORKIN

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DRAKE A. STANLEY

LANCE CORPORAL (E-3), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400187

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 21 January 2014.

Military Judge: LtCol L.J. Francis, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 2nd Battalion, 7th 

Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LtCol V.G. Laratta, 

USMC.

For Appellant: CAPT Charles Stimson, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

30 September 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
# L_2014092EN.01001801.xml

| 27.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 92/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 92/18

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 192/2013

of 8 November 2013

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 12zc (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32013 R 0348: Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 (OJ L 108, 18.4.2013, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32013 R 0348: Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 (OJ L 108, 18.4.2013, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 November 2013, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 November 2013.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Thórir IBSEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 108, 18.4.2013, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Ralph Howard BLAKELY, petitioner, v. Linda G. TOMPKINS.

No. 17-6122.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Niko SIMMONS, petitioner, v. Randall HAAS, Warden.

No. 17-6376.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 105A/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 105A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 494 May 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 105A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 494 May 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Council |
| 2006/C 105A/1 | Publication of a vacancy notice for two posts of paediatric nurse — Reference: B/027 | 1 |
| 2006/C 105A/2 | Notice of vacancy for a post of Director — Reference: A/035 | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Council

2006/C 105A/1

Publication of a vacancy notice for two posts of paediatric nurse — Reference: B/027

1

2006/C 105A/2

Notice of vacancy for a post of Director — Reference: A/035

2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/03/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      201,316
COMMITMENTS
  69,009   11,168   24,417   80,681  134,055  174,107  169,640   27,209   31,676

CHANGES FROM 07/27/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      9,556)
     930    1,072   -5,962   10,885   11,917    5,853    7,027    3,703    2,529

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    34.3      5.5     12.1     40.1     66.6     86.5     84.3     13.5     15.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      216)
      71       29       45       58       94      144      158
```

----

Updated August 6, 2010
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 13, 2019

NO. 03-18-00560-CV

Juan A. Martin-de-Nicolas, Appellant

v.

Mark Octaviano, Joaquin Aguirre, Victorio Tostado, and

Lylia B. Jimenez-Gutierrez, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIANA

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the summary judgment orders signed by the trial court on Mary 29, 2018.

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant shall pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Corey Duran BERRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8987.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Jonathan L. HULL, petitioner, v. Amanda R. HULL.

No. 17-5427.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied.
Mark S. AMAR, petitioner, v. Tanya Davis WILSON.

No. 16-9043.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# L_2008100EN.01006601.xml

| 10.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 100/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 100/66

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 140/2007

of 26 October 2007

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 105/2007 of 28 September 2007 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 105/2007 of 28 September 2007 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1950/2006 of 13 December 2006 establishing, in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, a list of substances essential for the treatment of equidae (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1950/2006 of 13 December 2006 establishing, in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, a list of substances essential for the treatment of equidae (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 15z (Commission Directive 2006/86/EC) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘15za. | 32006 R 1950: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1950/2006 of 13 December 2006 establishing, in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, a list of substances essential for the treatment of equidae (OJ L 367, 22.12.2006, p. 33).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘15za.

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 1950/2006 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 27 October 2007, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 26 October 2007.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 47, 21.2.2008, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 367, 22.12.2006, p. 33.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4438 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax 

on investment income of private colleges and universities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2019 

Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. BYRNE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise tax on investment income of private colleges 

and universities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Don’t Tax Higher 

5 Education Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON INVESTMENT INCOME 

7 OF PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 42 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subchapter H 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4438 IH

1 (and by striking the item relating to such subchapter in 

2 the table of subchapters for such chapter). 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          22,985
<SECURITIES>                                    34,350
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,707
<INVENTORY>                                     25,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,078
<PP&E>                                          51,744
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,125
<BONDS>                                          9,845
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,329
<SALES>                                         49,404
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,404
<CGS>                                           35,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 387
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,510)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (342)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,150)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,150)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
William John RUDGE, IV, petitioner, v. CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA.

No. 16-9078.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY OF DIRECTORS OF

STANCORP FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

The undersigned hereby appoints each of Eric E. Parsons, Cindy J. McPike, and Michael T. Winslow, signing singly, as the undersigneds true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of StanCorp Financial
Group, Inc., the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, complete and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with
the Securities and Exchange Commission; and

(2) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the foregoing which, in
the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be in the best interest of, or legally required by the undersigned.

The undersigned hereby
ratifies and confirms all that the attorney-in-fact and agent shall do or cause to be done under this Power of Attorney.

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney this 28th day of February 2007.



|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|                        
|/s/ Virginia L. Anderson
|Virginia L. Anderson    

|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|                        
|/s/ Frederick W. Buckman
|Frederick W. Buckman    

|                      |  | 
|--------------------- |  | 
|                     
|/s/ Stanley R. Fallis
|Stanley R. Fallis    

|                    |  | 
|------------------- |  | 
|                   
|/s/ Wanda G. Henton
|Wanda G. Henton    

|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|                       
|/s/ Peter O. Kohler, MD
|Peter O. Kohler, MD    

|                    |  | 
|------------------- |  | 
|                   
|/s/ Jerome J. Meyer
|Jerome J. Meyer    

|                      |  | 
|--------------------- |  | 
|                     
|/s/ Ralph R. Peterson
|Ralph R. Peterson    

|                 |  | 
|---------------- |  | 
|                
|/s/ E. Kay Stepp
|E. Kay Stepp    

|                      |  | 
|--------------------- |  | 
|                     
|/s/ Michael G. Thorne
|Michael G. Thorne    

|                    |  | 
|------------------- |  | 
|                   
|/s/ Ronald E. Timpe
|Ronald E. Timpe
Adolphus NWOKEDI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7014.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 23892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08542]


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

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Actuarial Advisory Committee With Respect to the Railroad 
Retirement Account; Notice of Public Meeting

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with Public Law 92-463 that 
the Actuarial Advisory Committee will hold a virtual meeting on May 13, 
2022, at 1:00 p.m. (Central Daylight Time) on the conduct of the 2022 
Annual Report Required by the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 and the 
Railroad Retirement Solvency Act of 1983. The agenda for this meeting 
will include a discussion of the assumptions to be used in the Annual 
Report. A report containing recommended assumptions and the experience 
on which the recommendations are based will have been sent by the Chief 
Actuary to the Committee before the meeting.
    The meeting will be open to the public. Persons wishing to submit 
written statements, make oral presentations, or attend the meeting 
should address their communications or notices to Patricia Pruitt 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9e9d8cdcbd0dad0d897e9cbccd0cdcdf9cbcbdb97ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94c4f5e0e6fdf7fdf5bac4e6e1fde0e0d4e6e6f6baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>) so that information on how to join the 
virtual meeting can be provided.

    Dated: April 18, 2022.
Stephanie Hillyard,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-08542 Filed 4-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-P


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

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1541

___________

United States, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Sherman Hopkins, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 6, 2007

Filed: November 15, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Sherman Hopkins, Jr., challenges the

reasonableness of the 46-month prison sentence imposed by the district court1

 after

he pleaded guilty to committing perjury before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1623. 

We conclude that the court appropriately interpreted and applied the Guidelines,

see United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo standard
-2-

of review), correctly followed the sentencing procedure set forth in United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2005) (court is to determine appropriate

advisory Guidelines range, evaluate if traditional departures are warranted, and

consider all sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before imposing

sentence), and did not treat the Guidelines as presumptively reasonable. 

We further conclude that Hopkins’s 46-month sentence is reasonable, and not

an abuse of the district court’s discretion, because the court considered only relevant

factors at sentencing and exercised sound judgment in weighing those factors. See

Haack, 403 F.3d at 1003-04 (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of

discretion; abuse of discretion occurs if court fails to consider relevant factor that

should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant

factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in

weighing those factors). Contrary to Hopkins’s arguments, no unwarranted

sentencing disparity existed where the individual to whom he compares himself was

not found guilty of similar conduct, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (in imposing sentence,

court is to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”); the

court appropriately considered the nature and degree of his interference with the

administration of justice; and his offense was not so minor as to render the district

court’s sentencing decision a clear error of judgment.

Accordingly, Hopkins’s sentence is affirmed.

______________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4280

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LARRY SHANE KING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00454-JAB-1)

Submitted: December 10, 2015 Decided: December 30, 2015

Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Shane King appeals the district court’s judgment 

sentencing him to 151 months of imprisonment pursuant to his 

conviction for conspiring to manufacture quantities of a mixture 

and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). King’s

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for 

appeal. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

this case, as well as King’s pro se supplemental brief, and have 

found no meritorious issues. Before accepting King’s guilty 

plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, 

satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring 

that King’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an 

independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 

F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court made no 

significant procedural error at sentencing, see Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and King has not rebutted our 

appellate presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is 

substantively reasonable. See United States v. Louthian, 756 

F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s criminal 

judgment. This court requires that counsel inform King, in 
3

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If King requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on King. 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.

AFFIRMED