alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18166]


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

DEFENSE OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee will meet in 
closed session at the Pentagon on September 22, 2005 from 0900 to 2000 
and September 23, 2005 from 0830 to 1500.
    The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Secretary of Defense, 
Deputy Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
with independent, informed advice on major matters of defense policy. 
The Board will hold classified discussions on national security 
matters.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C. App II (1982)], it has 
been determined that this meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 
552B(c)(1)(1982), and that accordingly this meeting will be closed to 
the public.

    Dated: September 8, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-18166 Filed 9-8-05; 3:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 5000-08-M
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 779 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 779

      To reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
                       Determination Act of 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2007

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
                       Determination Act of 2000.

    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 ``Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-
              DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000.

    The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 
2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 106-393) is amended--
            (1) in titles I and II--
                    (A) by striking ``2006'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``2007''; and
                    (B) by striking ``2007'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``2008'';
            (2) in section 203(e)(3)(B), by striking clauses (iv), (v), 
        and (vi) and inserting the following:
                            ``(iv) For each of fiscal years 2004 
                        through 2007, 50 percent.'';
            (3) in section 303, by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
        ``2007''; and
            (4) in section 401, by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
        ``2007''.
                                 <all>
```
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat
v Council**

**(Case T-348/05)**

Dumping − Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Ukraine − Amendment of the definition of the product concerned
− Application of existing measures to new product types

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Review procedure – Modification of the definition of the product concerned by existing measures – Incorporation of the product concerned into new products – Applicability of existing measures to the new products – None – Need to open a new investigation (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 1, 5, 11(3) and 13) (see paras 61-64, 66, 68-70)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2005 L 160, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by JSC Kirovo‐Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. |
State v. Jimmy Lee Gann

243P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2016

David Weiss, Attorney at Law, For Gann, Jimmy Lee.

Teresa M. Postell Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Todd Williams, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of June 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of June 2016."
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40186 Conference Calendar

JOHN WESLEY BANOS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CORETTA CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:96-CV-57

- - - - - - - - - - August 15, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND DUHÉ, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
PER CURIAM: * The magistrate judge improperly granted John Wesley Banos, Texas prisoner # 545431, leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). Banos has at least three strikes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars Banos from IFP status. See Banos v. Garner , No. 96-CV-92 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 1996) (case dismissed as frivolous; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution); Banos v. Bush , No. 96-CV-219 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 1996)(case dismissed as frivolous; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution); Banos v.No. 97-40186 -2- Shaw , No. 93-CV-45 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 1993)(case dismissed as frivolous; district court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal). Nothing in the record indicates that the exception to the statutory bar applies in this case. IT IS ORDERED that the earlier order granting leave to proceed IFP is VACATED. Banos has thirty days in which to pay the $105 filing fee. Failure to make a timely payment will result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3.1.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED IF FULL FILING FEE NOT PAID.
STATE v. Michael Orlando COOK.

No. 254P08-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Michael Orlando Cook, Lumberton, for Cook, Michael Orlando.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of January 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
In the Matter of T.D.V., C.L.V.

No. COA15-929.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE v. Charles Edward HUMPHRIES, Jr.

No. 256P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Charles Edward Humphries, Jr., Hillsborough, for Humphries, Charles Edward (Jr.).

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of July 2015 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
# CE2004088EN.01038201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/382 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/382

---

(2004/C 88 E/0388)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Community support for torture victims

Subject:

The author of this question has received disturbing information from a number of torture-victim support agencies to the effect that, in 2002, the amount of funding which had hitherto been made available to such agencies was reduced by nearly 45 %.

As a consequence of that reduction, approximately 30 rehabilitation centres in 20 or so countries may have to close or to make drastic cutbacks in the assistance which they provide.

According to the agencies concerned the reduction is attributable to a change in the policy followed by the Commission, which has apparently decided to place greater emphasis on prevention at the expense of rehabilitation.

Can the Commission confirm this information?

Is the Commission aware of the harm which has been done by the change in its policy?

Has the Commission any information concerning the amount of funding which will be required if the rehabilitation projects financed by the Community are to continue?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

(6 August 2003)

The reply to written question E-1858/03 by Mr De Rossa (1) provided a comprehensive account of the situation with respect to funding for rehabilitation activities for torture victims in 2002 and 2003.

1

Further to that reply, the Commission is currently reflecting on the programming of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights for 2004 and beyond. A special Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) seminar was convened on 14 July 2003 (with attendance also by several Members of Parliament) in order to canvass views on thematic priorities for future funding, including torture.

---

(1)  See page 48.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136288(48) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136288 

 COA: 276153 

Macomb CC: 2005-004731-FC 

ANTONIO PEREZ-CHICA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
                   Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Western Wireless Corporation, a Washington corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June
     30, 2004 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

Dated:  August 6, 2004

                                               By:  /s/ JOHN W. STANTON
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    John W. Stanton
                                                    Chairman of the Board and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 12, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137175 & (21)(22) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JUSTIN TERRELL, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137175 

 COA: 283511 
 Kent CC: 04-007985-NI 

CLARISSA MARIE-MARION VAUGHN,

WILLIE McCLAIN, d/b/a PRIDE ASPHALT 

PAVING AND CONCRETE, and MIRAC, INC.,

d/b/a ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration and for stay of 

trial court proceedings are GRANTED, and enforcement of the judgments entered by the 

Kent Circuit Court on September 13, 2007 and August 29, 2008 is stayed until further 

order of this Court. The application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2008 order of the 

Court of Appeals remains pending. 

p0909 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 12, 2008 

Clerk
# C_2008092EN.01000602.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Maira María Robledillo Núñez v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

(Case C-498/06) (1)

1

(Social policy - Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer - Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC - First paragraph of Article 3 and Article 10(a) - Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under an extra-judicial conciliation procedure - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision - Principles of equality and non-discrimination)

(2008/C 92/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maira María Robledillo Núñez

Applicant:

Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Scope of the guarantee offered by the guarantee institution — Compensation in the event of termination of the employment relationship — National rules which require judgment or administrative decision for such compensation — Principles of equality and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the power to exclude compensation granted for unfair dismissal from the payment guarantee of the guarantee institutions pursuant to that provision where they have been recognised by an extra-judicial conciliation settlement and such exclusion, objectively justified, constitutes a measure necessary to avoid abuses within the meaning of Article 10(a) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000930810
<NAME> RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,307
<PP&E>                                       1,767,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                (172,649)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,908,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,361
<BONDS>                                        958,608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    263,126
<COMMON>                                       577,150
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,908,902
<SALES>                                         70,635
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,107
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,943
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,091
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,091
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3982

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Angel M. Koski, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant-Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 19, 2010 Filed: February 8, 2011

___________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Angel M. Koski pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1) and 846. The district court 1 sentenced her at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range to seventy-seven months' imprisonment followed by five years' supervised release. Koski now appeals her sentence, arguing her sentence was unreasonable, she should have received furt her reduction for mitigating circumstances, and she should have been eligible for "safety valve" relief. We affirm.-2- The plea agreement contains an app eal waiver, according to which Koski waived any and all rights to appeal her conviction and sentence except the right to seek post-conviction relief based upon ineff ective assistance of counsel, the right to appeal the district court's decision that she does not meet the requirements of United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)–(5), and the right to appeal her conviction and sentence if the statute under wh ich she was convicted were later found invalid. We will enforce the appeal waiv er because the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the r ecord shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entere d into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result).
Koski's only argument not barred by the appeal waiver is her claim that the district court erred in finding that she is not eligible for the "safety valve" provision set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The safety valve provisi on mandates that the court sentence a defendant in accordance with th e Guidelines without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds the defendant meets five statutory requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The first of the five requirements is "the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines." § 3553(f)(1). The presentence report assigned Koski sixteen criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, resulting in a criminal history category of VI. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding Koski ineligible for safety valve relief.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________