alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18435]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration No. 10191 and No. 10192]


Kentucky Disaster No. KY-00002

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Kentucky dated 09/07/2005.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 08/29/2005.
    Effective Date: 09/07/2005.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/07/2005.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/07/2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road Fort 
Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 
6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Christian.
Contiguous Counties:
    Kentucky: Caldwell, Hopkins, Muhlenberg, Todd, and Trigg.
    Tennessee: Montgomery, Stewart.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere....................     5.375
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere.................     2.687
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere....................     6.557
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.750
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10191 6 
and for economic injury is 10192 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration number are: Kentucky, 
Tennessee.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: September 7, 2005.
Hector V. Barreto,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-18435 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: LUIS NAVA III,

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00240-CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

 IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator, Luis Nava III, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Patrick Garcia,

of the 384th District Court to return him from the custody of the Institutional Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice to the El Paso County Jail. Relator contends that the trial court has

acted in violation of Article 42.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by allowing him to be

sent to the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice instead of serving the

pendency of his appeal in the El Paso County Jail. 

In order to establish a right to relief through a writ of mandamus, a realtor must establish:

(1) no other adequate remedy at law is available; and (2) that the act he seeks to compel is

ministerial. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210

(Tex.Crim.App.2007). An act is ministerial if it does not involve the exercise of any discretion.

State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex.Crim.App.
-2-

2001). Based on the petition, supplements, and record provided, Mr. Flores has not demonstrated

he is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX.R.APP.P.52.8.

August 21, 2008 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
# CE2004065EN.01006601.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/66

---

(2004/C 65 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1216/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Perugia

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Perugia, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136251 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136251 

 COA: 283086 

Macomb CC: 2006-004728-FC 

ACIE MAHON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted of the challenge to the scoring of Offense Variable 10, 

MCL 777.40, in light of People v Cannon (Docket No. 131994), 481 Mich 152 (2008). 

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

WEAVER and CORRIGAN, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

l0903 

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 10, 2008 

 Clerk
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 82/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 82/2014 of 28 January 2014 approving non-minor amendments to the specification            for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Montes de Granada            (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 82/2014                     

# of 28 January 2014

# approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin                        and protected geographical indications [Montes de Granada (PDO)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Spain's                              application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Montes de Granada’,                              registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 417/2006(2).

(2)Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission                              published the amendment application in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments                              should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The amendments to the specification published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.5.****Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.)**U.K.

#### SPAINU.K.

Montes de Granada (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 72, 11.3.2006, p. 8.                           

3

OJ C 177, 22.6.2013, p. 24.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135931 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135931 

 COA: 280958 

Allegan CC: 99-011109-FC 

MICHAEL DENNIS BATEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p0828 

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
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-07-00202-CR

______________________________

SHANE HANKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 0417805

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
In a companion appeal, cause number 06-07-00201-CR, also before this Court, Hankins 1

appeals the adjudication of his guilt for possession of a controlled substance. In that case, Hankins

was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to two years' confinement in a state jail facility.

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Shane Hankins appeals from the revocation of his community supervision for the underlying

offense of possession of marihuana in an amount of five pounds or less but more than four ounces.

See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(b)(3) (Vernon 2003). The trial court modified

the terms of Hankins' community supervision, requiring that he finish his state jail service, attend 1

and complete a Substance Abuse Felony Program, and remain on community supervision for ten

years. 

Because the issues raised in each appeal are identical, for the reasons stated in our opinion

dated this day in Hankins v. State, cause number 06-07-00201-CR, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: August 27, 2008

Date Decided: September 5, 2008

Do Not Publish
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting 
to assign monitors on 2005 projects and hold a short public forum 
(question and answer session). The meeting is being held pursuant to 
the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) 
and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act 
of 200 (Pub. L. 106-393). The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 27, 2005, 6:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Ravalli County 
Administration Building, 215 S. 4th Street, Hamilton, Montana. Send 
written comments to Daniel G. Ritter, District Ranger, Stevensville 
Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, by facsimile 
(406) 777-7423, or electronically to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel G. Ritter, Stevensville 
District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, Phone: (406) 777-5461.

    Dated: September 12, 2005.
David T. Bull,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-18533 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7255

SA’ID ABDULLAH AL’RASHID,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOUG CATOE; LAURIE F. BESSINGER; JOYCE BROWN;

SAMUAL K. LEWIS; JOHN NORRIS; MARY SELF; SERGEANT PARKER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-99-459-3-19BC)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sa’id Abdullah Al’Rashid, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick

Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Sa’id Abdullah Al’Rashid appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Al’Rashid v. Catoe, No. CA-99-459-3-19BC (D.S.C.

filed July 27, 2000; entered July 28, 2000). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
498 S.E.2d 464

#### Elvin William SHEPPARD, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 1335-96-3.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

May *5,*1998.

Wayne T. Baucino, Assistant Public Defender (Vikram Kapil, Assistant Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.

*320Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Before: FITZPATRICK, C.J., and BAKER, BENTON, COLEMAN, WILLIS, ELDER, BRAY, ANNUNZIATA, OVERTON and BUMGARDNER, JJ.

UPON A REHEARING EN BANC

A divided panel of this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. *See Sheppard v. Commonwealth,*25 Va.App. 527, 489 S.E.2d 714 (1997). We stayed the mandate of that decision and granted rehearing *en banc.*

Upon rehearing *en banc,*the judgment of the trial court is affirmed without opinion by an evenly divided Court.

The Commonwealth shall recover of the appellant the costs in this Court, which costs shall also include an additional fee of $200 for services rendered by attorneys of the Public Defender’s office on the rehearing portion of this appeal, in addition to counsel’s necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.
STATE v. Shamele COLLINS.

No. 66A16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Andrew A. Kasper, Charlotte, for Collins, Shamele.

Douglas W. Corkhill, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 12th of April 2016 by State of NC:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 1st day of June 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

17 July 2007

Case F-141/06

**Marc Hartwig**

**v**

**European Parliament and Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Preliminary issues – Objection of inadmissibility)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Hartwig seeks annulment of Parliament’s decision of 27 March 2006 and
the Commission’s decision of 12 April 2006 in so far as they classify him in grade B*3.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it concerns Parliament. Parliament is to bear its own costs. The applicant
and the Commission are to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings on the plea of inadmissibility. The remainder of
the costs are reserved.

**Summary**

*Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Formal conditions*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))*

Since an administrative complaint lodged by an official does not need to take any particular form, a document sent electronically
which clearly and precisely manifests its author’s intention to challenge a decision taken concerning him constitutes a complaint
within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

A complaint is deemed to be lodged when it reaches the institution to which it is addressed. That is not the case with a complaint
sent to an incorrect electronic address, even if it is likely to reach the institution’s general server, without the sender
receiving an error message.

An official exercising due care who chooses to submit his complaint electronically must make sure that the addressee’s address
is correct and that the document has been safely received, for instance by telephoning the addressee or requesting a document
proving receipt of the email. That basic precaution is all the more necessary since the communication techniques currently
used within the institutions cannot definitely guarantee, particularly where the terms preceding the ‘@’ sign are incorrect
or inaccurate, that the document in question will be automatically redistributed to the addressee or, at the very least, that
an error message in the form of an autoreply will be sent to the sender.

(see paras 26-30, 32)

See:

167/86 *Rousseau* v *Court of Auditors* [1988] ECR 2705, para. 8; 23/87 and 24/87 *Aldinger and Virgili* v *Parliament* [1988] ECR 4395, para. 13

T-54/90 *Lacroix* v *Commission* [1991] ECR II‐749, paras 28 and 29; T-354/03 *Reggimenti* v *Parliament* [2005] ECR-SC I‐A‐33 and II‐147, para. 43

F-3/05 *Schmit* v *Commission* [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-9 and II-A-1-33, para. 28
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meetings.

      ( print page 54006)    

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Northeast Oregon Forests Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet on September 19 and 20, 2005 in La Grande, Oregon. The purpose of the meeting is to meet as a Committee to review proposed projects for fiscal year 2006 and to review projects in the field.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held as follows: September 19, 2005, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. in La Grande, Oregon; September 20, 2005, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. in La Grande, Oregon.

# ADDRESSES:

The September 19, 2005 meeting will be held at the Blue Mountain Conference Center, 404 12th Street, La Grande, Oregon.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Harris, Designated Federal Official, USDA, Malheur National Forest, P.O. Box 909, John Day, Oregon 97845. Phone: (541) 575-3008.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

At the September 19, 2005 meeting the RAC will finish reviewing proposed projects for the coming year. A public comment period will be provided at 1:40 p.m. and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time. The September 20, 2005 field trip will leave from the La Grande Ranger District, Highway 30, La Grande, Oregon.

Dated: September 7, 2005.

Jennifer L. Harris,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 05-18054  Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-DK-M
**Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Italy v Commission**

**(Case C‐417/06 P)**

Appeal – Admissibility – Structural Funds – Financing of Community initiatives – Amendment of indicative allocations – Enforcement of the final judgment

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects (Art. 233 EC) (see paras 50-53, 59-60, 65-66)*

2.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Insufficient or contradictory statement of reasons (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art.
58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c), first para.) (see paras 75-76)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-225/04 | Italy | v | Commission | dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative allocations between the Member States of the commitment appropriations under Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 and of all related prior measures. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Appeal dismissed; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The Italian Republic is ordered to pay its own costs and those of the Commission of the European Communities. |