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

###### Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

          - 42 CFR Parts 447 and 455
          - [CMS-2198-CN]
          - RIN 0938-AN09

# AGENCY:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

# ACTION:

Correction of proposed rule.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a technical error that appeared in the proposed rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on August 26, 2005 entitled “Medicaid Program; Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments.”                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Frizzera, (410) 786-9535.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## I. Background

In FR Doc. 05-16974 of August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50262), we inadvertently omitted a sample Excel spreadsheet that displays the reporting requirements described in section III.A. of the proposed rule.

## II. Correction of Errors

In FR Doc. 05-16974 of August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50262), we are making the following correction:

On page 50264, third column, after the first full paragraph, add the following Excel spreadsheet:
      ( print page 55813)    
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance Program)

Dated: September 20, 2005.

Ann C. Agnew,

Executive Secretary to the Department.

BILLING CODE 4120-01-P

[FR Doc. 05-19051 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
# C_2009141EN.01003802.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-281/06) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Compensatory aid for banana producers - Irregularities in quality controls - Type of financial correction applied - Proportionality)

2009/C 141/77

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12) in so far as it provides for a financial correction applicable to expenses declared by the Kingdom of Spain pursuant to compensatory aid for banana producers for the financial years 2002 and 2003.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6672

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JESSIE WILLIAM NEWTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-SGW-18)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie William Newton, Appellant Pro Se. John L. Brownlee, United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jessie William Newton appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) motion.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Newton, No. 5:02-cr-30020-SGW-18 (W.D. Va.

Mar. 24, 2008). 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
STATE OF WA3iil>-:QT0.!

2013 DEC 30 AM 10: 50

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON

Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA M. REAVELEY,

Appellant.

No. 70224-6-1

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED:

PER CURIAM - Joshua Reaveley appeals the sentence imposed

following his conviction for second degree burglary. He contends, and the State

concedes, that the State failed to prove the comparability of two out-of-state

convictions included in his offender score. The parties agree that accelerated

review is appropriate and that we must remand for resentencing, including an

evidentiary hearing on the comparability of the out-of-state offenses. See State v.

Lopez, 147 Wn.2d 515, 520, 55 P.3d 609 (2002). We accept the concession,

accelerate review, and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

FOR THE COURT:
Brad R. Johnson v. James R. Prevatte, Jr., Prevatte & Prevatte, PLLC

No. 138P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. James R. Holland, Mr. Colin J. Tarrant, Attorneys at Law, Wilmington, Ms. Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Prevatte, James R. (Jr.), et al.

Mr. Brad R. Johnson, For Johnson, Brad R.

**ORDER**

Ervin, J.

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 18th of April 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 28th of July 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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 8th of December 2016."
# C_2008064EN.01001201.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen, Belgium) — NV Lammers & Van Cleeff v Belgische Staat

(Case C-105/07) (1)

1

(Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Interest paid by a subsidiary on funds lent by the parent company established in another Member State - Reclassification of the interest as taxable dividends - No such reclassification where interest payments are made to a resident company)

(2008/C 64/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NV Lammers & Van Cleeff

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 46 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC — National fiscal legislation reclassifying as taxable dividends interest paid by a subsidiary by way of remuneration in respect of loans provided by the parent company established in another Member State, but not reclassifying such interest as taxable dividends when paid to a company established in Belgium

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which interest payments made by a company resident in a Member State to a director which is a company established in another Member State are reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, taxable, where, at the beginning of the taxable period, the total of the interest-bearing loans is higher than the paid-up capital plus taxed reserves, whereas, in the same circumstances, where those interest payments are made to a director which is a company established in the same Member State, those payments are not reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, not taxable.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
* 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. 07-50510

Summary Calendar 

ANTHONY A. WHITEHURST

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CHARLEY VALDEZ, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; WILLIE

VELASQUEZ, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; TROY FOX, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice; OTHERS AS OF YET UNKNOWN

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CV-535

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant sued officials of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for

failing to properly calculate his time-served in various forms of State custody,

leading to (a) his having remained in Texas prison longer than necessary and

(b) the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ miscalculation of his subsequent federal

release date. The district court held alternatively that Whitehurst’s complaint

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50510

2

was time barred under the Texas limitations period applicable in a § 1983 suit,

or that the individual defendants were entitled to immunity because they were

not responsible for the miscalculations that harmed Whitehurst. The latter

proposition is incontestable. The former proposition is supported at Rec II:303

where a letter Whitehurst wrote in 2003 acknowledged that he knew as early as

1997 that the State had failed to credit the time served. We need not reach any

potential Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) bar to this suit, and

Whitehurst’s other contentions lack merit. We find no reversible error in the

court’s opinions and AFFIRM the judgment of dismissal.
# C_2008051EN.01004001.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/40

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-382/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 51/73)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.

1

---
# C_2009044EN.01001601.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-349/07) (1)

1

(Community Customs Code - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Post-clearance recovery of customs import duties)

(2009/C 44/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado Lda

Appellant:

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Respondent:

Intervening party: Ministério Público

Intervening party:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Compatibility with Community law and the principle of the rights of the defence of national provisions of fiscal administrative procedure concerning the periods for the exercise of the taxpayer's right to a hearing — Administrative procedure for the post-clearance payment of import duties on goods from the far east

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | With regard to recovery of a customs debt for the purpose of effecting post-clearance recovery of customs import duties, a period of 8 to 15 days allowed to an importer suspected of having committed a customs offence in which to submit its observations complies in principle with the requirements of Community law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

With regard to recovery of a customs debt for the purpose of effecting post-clearance recovery of customs import duties, a period of 8 to 15 days allowed to an importer suspected of having committed a customs offence in which to submit its observations complies in principle with the requirements of Community law.

| 2. | It is for the national court before which the case has been brought to ascertain, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, whether the period actually allowed to that importer made it possible for it to be given a proper hearing by the customs authorities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the national court before which the case has been brought to ascertain, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, whether the period actually allowed to that importer made it possible for it to be given a proper hearing by the customs authorities.

| 3. | The national court must also ascertain whether, in the light of the period which elapsed between the time when the authorities concerned received the importer's observations and the date on which they took their decision, they can be deemed to have taken due account of the observations sent to them. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The national court must also ascertain whether, in the light of the period which elapsed between the time when the authorities concerned received the importer's observations and the date on which they took their decision, they can be deemed to have taken due account of the observations sent to them.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
WILKES v. CITY OF GREENVILLE

368PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2016

Anita B. Hunt, Attorney at Law, Durham, Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Wilkes, Johnnie.

Matthew P. Blake, Attorney at Law, Cary, for City of Greenville, et al.

J. William Crone, IV, Attorney at Law, J. Timothy Wilson, Attorney at Law, Bruce A. Hamilton, Attorney at Law, Tracey L. Jones, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel/Director of Policy, Christine Teresa Scheef, Attorney at Law, Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Angela Farag Craddock, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Kathleen G. Sumner, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, David P. Stewart, Attorney at Law, for Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group.

E. Stewart Poisson, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Vernon Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of November 2016 by Defendant to Amend New Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of November 2016."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18848]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5191]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Terracotta Warriors of Emperor Qin Shihuang''

    Summary: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Terracotta Warriors of Emperor Qin 
Shihuang,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Washington, DC, 
from on or about October 1, 2005 to on or about October 31, 2005, and 
at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.
    For Further Information Contact: For further information, including 
a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr R. Sulzynsky, the 
Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 202/453-
8050). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., 
Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: September 14, 2005.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 05-18848 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
STATE v. Robert Craig BARBEE

299P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Robert Craig Barbee, for Barbee, Robert Craig.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of August 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
STATE v. Raul OLIVEROS.

No. 80P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Adrian Dellinger, Associate Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Saul Oliveros, Polkton, for Oliveros, Raul.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of March 2016 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
# C_2008327EN.01002202.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 November 2008 — Group Lottuss Corp v OHIM — Ugly (COYOTE UGLY)

(Case T-161/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the figurative Community mark COYOTE UGLY - Earlier Community word mark COYOTE UGLY - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation(EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 327/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Group Lottuss Corp., SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Angulo Lafora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and J. Arribas García, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ugly, Inc. (Cornwall, New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, barrister, M. Blair and C. Balme, solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2007 (Joined Cases R 165/2006-2 and R 194/2006-2) concerning an opposition procedure between Ugly Inc. and Group Lottuss Corp., SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Group Lottuss Corp., SL to bear all its own costs, to pay four fifths of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market(Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) and to pay four fifths of the costs of Ugly Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Group Lottuss Corp., SL to bear all its own costs, to pay four fifths of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market(Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) and to pay four fifths of the costs of Ugly Inc.;

| 3. | orders Ugly Inc. to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of OHIM's costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders Ugly Inc. to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of OHIM's costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 of 7.7.2007.

1

---