alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54600-54601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18331]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending August 26, 2005

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart 
B (formerly subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-2005-22261 and OST-2005-22228.
    Date Filed: August 26, 2005.

[[Page 54601]]

    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope:
    Description: Application of American Eagle Airlines, Inc. and 
Executive Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American Eagle, in response to the 
Department's notice of August 23, 2005 on streamlining regulatory 
procedures for licensing U.S. and foreign air carriers, requesting a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing scheduled 
foreign air transportation of persons, property to correspond to U.S.-
Mexico routes for which American Eagle Airlines, Inc. holds authority 
by exemption.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 05-18331 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Parraguirre 

notice of appeal is deemed "filed" when delivered to a prison official), we 

lack jurisdiction, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

/ 

Hardesty 

,J. 

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

Terrance Davis 

2
# CE2004070EN.01001001.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/10

---

(2004/C 70 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3226/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2002)

Subject:   Safety of crash barriers for motorcyclists

Subject:

In a meeting between Mr Carlos Bautista and Commissioner Loyola de Palacio in September 2001, the Commissioner admitted that the current design of crash barriers is dangerous for motorcyclists. The Commissioner assured that immediate action would be taken to resolve this problem.

| 1. | Could the Commission explain what steps have been taken to improve the safety of crash barriers for motorcyclists? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Could the Commission explain what steps have been taken to improve the safety of crash barriers for motorcyclists?

| 2. | What future plans does the Commission have to improve the safety of crash barriers for motorcyclists? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What future plans does the Commission have to improve the safety of crash barriers for motorcyclists?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

(18 December 2002)

The high level of unsafety of motorcyclists is of major concern to the Commission and the problem is therefore attacked from different angles. It should be reminded that Member States are responsible for equipping roads with effective safety restraint systems including crash barriers.

The Commission has mandated the Committee for European Normalisation (CEN) to elaborate a new harmonised European standard on the basis of the existing EN 1317 on road restraint systems, which will require any road restraint systems to be submitted to CE marking. Thus restraint systems that are put to the market will have to meet minimum common safety performance requirements. In its current form, this standard does however not include specific tests for motorcyclists. At this point in time, different experimental solutions exist to fulfill the needs of this group of road users.

Black spot management and information to motorcyclists at stretches of road that have shown to be prone to motorcylce accidents are reckoned to be effective on a short term basis. To this end, the Commission has announced a proposal for a directive on black spot management in its workplan for 2003 (1).

1

---

(1)  COM(2002) 590 final.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 561 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 561

      To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
    Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the 
           adoption credit and adoption assistance programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 13, 2007

 Mr. Bunning (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
 Burr, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Hutchison, 
    Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Warner) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
    Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the 
           adoption credit and adoption assistance programs.

    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 Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND 
              TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 WITH RESPECT TO 
              ADOPTION CREDIT AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 
Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the amendments 
made by section 202 (relating to expansion of adoption credit and 
adoption assistance programs).''.
                                 <all>
```
THOMAS JEFFERSON CLASSICAL ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, et al. v. CLEVELAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 400A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 4, 2016.

Deborah R. Stagner, Raleigh, for Cleveland County Board of Education.

Richard A. Vinroot, Charlotte, for Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy Charter School, et al.

Matthew F. Tilley, Charlotte.

Amanda R. Pickens, Charlotte.

Christine T. Scheef, Staff Attorney, for NC School Boards Association.

Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel/Director of Policy, for NC School Boards Association.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of December 2015 by NC School Boards Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of January 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 6381** 

MARK FOWLER ,
Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.

KENNY ATKINSON , Respondent

– Appellee ,

a nd

CRAIG APKER , Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:14

- hc

- 02070

- BO )

Submitted : August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mark Fowler , Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.2 PER CURIAM:

Mark Fowler, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court ’ s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition and denying his motion for reconsideration . We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm. *

Fowler v. Atkinson , No. 5:14

- hc

- 02070

- BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2016

& Feb. 25, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* To the extent that Fowler characterize s his informal brief as a petition for writ of mandamus, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal

. U nited States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003)

.
ANTIQUITY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ELECTRICITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., and Pike Electric, LLC, Defendants.

No. COA15-311.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# CE2004088EN.01008801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/88

---

(2004/C 88 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2504/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Double taxation of returning migrants

Subject:

In April 2001 Frits Bolkestein drew attention to double taxation of pensions and, citing one specific instance in which discrimination arose, mentioned the different taxation practices applying to Finnish and Swedish pensions in particular. Has the Commission acted to remedy the shortcomings and what results has it achieved since 2001?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

(16 September 2003)

In its Communication on pension taxation of April 2001 (1), the Commission identified the elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions as a priority. The Finnish and the Swedish rules on taxation of pensions have since been subject to preliminary rulings by the Court of Justice (2). In both cases the Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer, striking down on rules restricting the taxpayer's right of deduction for cross-border pension contributions in comparison to domestic contributions. The Commission will closely monitor which modifications Finland and Sweden will be making to their tax legislation following the rulings.

1

2

In this context, it should also be mentioned that the Commission has decided to refer Denmark to the Court of Justice and has opened infringement procedures against seven other Member States (3). Two of these seven have already informed the Commission that they will take steps to modify their legislation.

3

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 8.6.2001.

1

(2)  The Danner case C-136/00, judgement of 3.10.2002, and the Skandia/Ramstedt case C-422/01, judgement of 26.6.2003.

2

(3)  See IP/03/179 and IP/03/965.

3

---
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee, 06-01, Review Ks and R03s.                    

*Date:*                         October 20-21, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn—Silver Spring, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Soheyla Saadi, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, 45 Center Dr. Rm 4AN32A, National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4805,                         *saadisoh@nidcr.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 9, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr., 

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-18391 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# FILED March 25, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

DIANA JEAN WHARTON ) RHEA COUNTY ) 03A01-9707-CH-00267 Plaintiff-Appellant ) ) ) v . ) HON. BUDDY D. PERRY, ) JUDGE ) ) WALTER H. WHARTON, JR., ) ) Defendant-Appellee ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

J. ANDREW STINNETT OF CHATTANOOGA FOR APPELLANT L. THOMAS AUSTIN OF DUNLAP FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

Goddard, P.J.

Diana Jean Wharton appeals a divorce decree of the Circuit Court for Rhea County, wherein the Trial Judge declared that both parties were entitled to a divorce pursuant to T.C.A. 36-4-129. He thereupon divided the marital property, ordered Mr. Wharton to pay rehabilitative alimony of $50 per week for a period of nine months, granted Mrs. Wharton one-half interest in the value of Mr. Wharton's Sprinkler Industries Supplementary2

Retirement Plan, refused to award her any interest in the National Automatic Sprinkler Industry pension fund. He also found that the parties should retain the personal property then in their possession, but declined to onerate Mr. Wharton with any future medical bills incurred by the Plaintiff:

1 . Whether the Trial Court erred in properly assessing the value of the real property and therefore failed to divide the property equitably between the parties. 2 . Whether the Trial Court erred in the division of the marital estate when it failed to divide the Appellee's pension funds between the parties. 3 . Whether the Trial Court erred in failing to properly consider the Appellant's medical condition in refusing to require the Appellee to continue paying medical insurance for the Appellant. 4 . Whether the Trial Court erred in properly considering all factors when awarding alimony to the Appellant.
The testimony before the Trial Court is presented in the record by a statement of the evidence, which we suspect is woefully inadequate. (See Appendix.) For example, it does not contain facts specifically found by the Trial Judge, i.e, the amount of encumbrance as to the real estate or the value of the pension fund he divided. It also omits the income that either party is presently earning.

However, upon indulging the assumption that the statement of the evidence is accurate and complete, we are nevertheless constrained to find that the evidence does not3

preponderate against the Trial Judge's findings of fact, hisdisposition of the parties' property, and the other determinations complained of by Mrs. Wharton.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for such other proceedings as may be necessary and collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Mrs. Wharton and her surety.

_______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
CONCUR:

________________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________ Don T. McMurray, J.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40463

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERIKA BOCANEGRA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-1050-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Erika Bocanegra appeals her sentence following a guilty plea to possession

with intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms of marijuana. Bocanegra

challenges the district court’s determination that she was not entitled to a

sentence reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 because she did not truthfully

provide the Government all relevant information concerning her offense. We

review the district court’s factual findings concerning a defendant’s eligibility for

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40463

2

a sentence under the § 5C1.2 safety valve for clear error. See United States v.

Miller, 179 F.3d 961, 963-64 (5th Cir. 1999). 

A defendant convicted of an offense involving drugs is eligible for a twolevel reduction in offense level if she meets the five criteria necessary to qualify

for a sentence under the § 5C1.2 safety valve provision. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(9);

United States v. Lopez, 264 F.3d 527, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2001). The fifth criterion,

the only one at issue here, requires that “the defendant has truthfully provided

to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning

the offense.” § 5C1.2(a)(5); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). The defendant has

the burden of showing that she truthfully provided the Government with all

relevant information. United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir.

1996). 

In this case, the district court made an “independent determination” that

Bocanegra had not provided truthful information that qualified her for a

sentence reduction under § 5C1.2. See United States v. McCrimmon, 443 F.3d

454, 457-58 (5th Cir. 2006). That determination is not clearly erroneous in light

of the implausibility of Bocanegra’s explanation how she became involved in the

conspiracy and her description of her encounters with the person who recruited

her to transport drugs. See Miller, 179 F.3d at 963-64. 

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Walter Timothy GAUSE.

No. 265P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Kimberly P. Hoppin, for Gause, Walter Timothy.

Robert Croom, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
# CE2004070EN.01005601.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/56

---

(2004/C 70 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1705/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject:   Investigations into Planistat Europe SA

Subject:

On 19 March 2003, the European Anti-Fraud Office. OLAF, filed charges against Planistat Europe SA with the Paris Public Prosecutor. The company was accused of being involved in fraudulent activities which adversely affected the Community budget.

OLAF's charge is manifestly based on a report by the Internal Audit Unit of the Statistical Office, Eurostat, which was drawn up as long ago as September 1999. The report claimed that Planistat Europe SA had issued large numbers of bogus invoices and had been involved in the creation of slush funds on which Eurostat officials were subsequently able to draw.

Despite these accusations, the Commission failed to terminate its business relations with Planistat Europe SA. The Commission's answer to my Written Question E-1283/02 states that the company received EUR 670 195 from the Community budget in 2000 and EUR 1 607 118 from the 2001 budget.

Can the Commission explain why Eurostat's business relations with Planistat Europe SA were not terminated?

Can it explain why Commissioner Schreyer did not herself intervene in order to stop any further payments, once the audit referred to above had been submitted to the Directorate-General for Financial Control, which operates under her authority, in spring 2000?

Can the Commission indicate the total amount of payments received by Planistat Europe SA from Eurostat over the last ten years, as well as the additional amount paid out of the slush funds referred to above?

Can the Commission also indicate the scale of payments received by Planistat Europe SA from other Commission departments?

---
BOBBITT v. SAFRIT., et al.

No. 667PA03-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 24, 2015.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of November 2015 by State of NC to Withdraw the Appeal:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of November 2015."
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                               |                                 |                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Dated: May              10,              2007 |                                      | /s/ Kenneth              Plotkin |
|                                               | Kenneth              Plotkin         |
|                                               | Chief              Executive Officer |

|   |                                            |                                    |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|        |                                                 | /s/ Gerald              Tucciarone |
|   | Gerald              Tucciarone                  |
|   | Chief              Financial Officer, Treasurer |
|   | and              Secretary                      |

----