alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2007019EN.01003301.xml

| 26.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 19/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/33

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 71/2007

of 25 January 2007

establishing that no award shall be made in the framework of the standing invitation to tender of white sugar provided for in Regulation (EC) No 38/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 January 2007, it is appropriate to decide that no award shall be made for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 January 2007, it is appropriate to decide that no award shall be made for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Sugar Committee, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Sugar Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 January 2007, for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007, no award shall be made.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 January 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 25 January 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 11, 18.1.2007, p. 4.

2

---
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

October 31, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James E. STEINBROOK, Appellant.

No. 04-3526.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 6, 2005.

Decided April 12, 2005.

Bruce E. Clark, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Laine T. Cardarella, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Kansas City, MO, James E. Steinbrook, St. Clair County Jail, Osceola, MO, for DefendanU-Appellant.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James E. Steinbrook pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Viewing the federal Sentencing Guidelines as presumptively constitutional and mandatory, the district court imposed a Guidelines sentence of 51 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. The court stated, however, that 12 months would be a more appropriate prison term in this case, if the Guidelines were not mandatory; and Mr. Steinbrook stated that he was not acquiescing to the constitutionality of the Guidelines. Mr. Stein-brook now appeals, arguing that it was inappropriate to sentence him under an unconstitutional Guidelines scheme.

We conclude that Mr. Steinbrook preserved his challenge to the constitutionality of the Guidelines, and that it was not harmless error for the district court to sentence him under a Guidelines scheme the court believed to be mandatory. *See United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 769, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (holding mandatory aspect of federal Sentencing Guidelines was unconstitutional; modifying Sentencing Reform Act provisions to make Guidelines advisory; in *761cases not involving Sixth Amendment violation, whether resentencing is warranted may depend on application of harmless-error doctrine); *United States v. Haidley,*400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir.2005) (sentencing defendant under Guidelines scheme district court believed to be mandatory rather than advisory was not harmless error, where district court sentenced defendant to minimum possible sentence under applicable Guidelines range and appeals court was left with “grave doubt” as to whether district court might have imposed lesser sentence if it had realized that Guidelines were only advisory; remanding for resentencing); *United States v. Sayre,*400 F.3d 599, 600-601 (8th Cir.2005) (ultimate inquiry requires determination as to whether error affected substantial rights, which in most cases means whether error was prejudicial or affected outcome of district court proceedings).

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand to the district court so that Mr. Steinbrook may be resentenced in accordance with *Booker.*
EXHIBIT 10.7


UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
IN LIEU OF SPECIAL MEETING
November 18, 1997

RESOLVED, that Future Petroleum Corporation is hereby authorized to enter 
into certain contracts, the terms of which are stated below, with the following 
individuals:

B. Carl Price;
Robert Price;
Don Wm. Reynolds.

These contracts are for a term of five (5) years from November 18, 1997.  This 
unanimous consent agreement will also serve as the contracts between Future 
Petroleum Corporation and the above individuals.

In consideration for his services, Mr. Don Wm. Reynolds is guaranteed an annual 
sum of not less than $18,000.  Mr. Reynolds is granted the right to use one 
hundred percent (100%) of this sum to purchase Future Petroleum Corporation 
restricted common stock. The purchase price per share for stock purchased under 
this right through January 31, 1998, is the average midpoint price between bid 
and ask for the five (5) days prior to November 18, 1997, which is forty-two 
cents ($0.42) and shall be prorated from November 18, 1997, to December 31, 
1997.  The price per share for stock purchased under this right after January 
31, 1998, will be the average midpoint price between bid and ask for the five 
(5) days prior to the agreed date of payment.  Payment shall be made on an 
annual basis by January 31 following the year of service.  The Corporation 
reserves the right to make payment to Mr. Reynolds in stock in lieu of cash.  
Mr. Reynolds is granted the right to receive the total amount of his annual 
compensation for 1998 at any time prior to January 31, 1998.  The stock will be 
registered at the time it is issued in lieu of cash payment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this unanimous consent, in
one or more counterparts, as of the 18th day of November, 1997.

FUTURE PETROLEUM CORPORATION          AGREED TO BY:

By /s/ B. Carl Price
B. Carl Price

By /s/Robert Price
Robert Price

By /s/ Don Wm. Reynolds 
Don Wm. Reynolds

By /s/Charles Dean Laudeman
Charles Dean Laudeman

By /s/ D. William Reynolds, Jr.
D. William Reynolds, Jr.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41172

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FRANCISCO PEREZ OROZCO,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 451

Filed: April 15, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for sexual battery of a minor 

child sixteen or seventeen years of age, with enhancement, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Francisco Perez Orozco was found guilty of sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or 

seventeen years of age, with enhancement. Idaho Code §§ 18-1508A, 19-2520G(2). The district 

court sentenced Orozco to a unified term of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of fifteen years. Orozco appeals asserting that the district court abused its 

discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Orozco’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Jan LIGHTFOOT v. STATE OF MAINE LEGISLATURE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted on Briefs Oct. 19, 1990.

Decided Dec. 6, 1990.

Jan Lightfoot, Hinckley, pro se.

Paul Stern, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and BRODY, JJ.

GLASSMAN, Justice.

By the present action against the Legislature pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982),1 Jan Lightfoot, appearing *pro se,*seeks an injunction to mandate that the Legislature enact certain legislation and asks for an award of attorney fees and costs. After a hearing on the motion of the Attorney General filed on behalf of the Legislature, the Superior Court (Somerset County, *Smith, J.)*dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Legislature had absolute immunity from the action. From that judgment Lightfoot appeals contending that the court erred in holding her claim was barred by legislative immunity and in not affording her a fair hearing. We affirm the judgment.

Maine’s Constitution explicitly preserves the separation of the powers of the three branches of government. Me. Const, art. Ill, § 2. The Legislature acts within its constitutional sphere of activity when it exercises discretion to reject or enact legislation. Me. Const, art. IV, pt. 3, § 1. To preserve legislative independence within this sphere of legitimate legislative activity the Legislature enjoys absolute common law immunity from section 1983 actions. This immunity extends to suits for declaratory and injunctive relief. *See Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc.,*446 U.S. 719, 731-34, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 1974-76, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980); *see also Board of*Ov*695
      *erseers of the Bar v. Lee,*422 A.2d 998, 1002 n. 8 (Me.1980) (judicial department may not interfere with exercise of power by legislative department within its own constitutional sphere), *appeal dismissed,*450 U.S. 1036, 101 S.Ct. 1751, 68 L.Ed.2d 233 (1981). The trial court did not err in dismissing Lightfoot’s complaint. Nor does the record support Lightfoot’s claim that judicial bias prevented her from receiving a fair hearing on the motion to dismiss her complaint. We have previously stated that a litigant appearing before the court *pro se*is not entitled to preferential treatment or to judicial accommodation greater than that afforded a litigant appearing by legal counsel. *Gurschick v. Clark,*511 A.2d 36 (Me.1986); M.R.Civ.P. 83(3).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for individuals alleging deprivations of their constitutional rights by action taken under color of state law.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22005]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1609-DR]


Florida; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-1609-DR), dated October 24, 2005, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective: October 25, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of October 24, 2005:

    Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach Counties for Individual 
Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency 
protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance 
program, including direct Federal assistance.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 05-22005 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
## 1995 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-19-1995 

# U nit ed S t a t es of Ame r ic a v

. N e a d le

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ock e t 94-7417

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1995 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U nit e d S t a t e s of Ame r ica v

. N e a d le " (1995). 1995 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 314. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995/314

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 94-7417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. LAWRENCE NEADLE, JR., Appellant.

_______________ On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Is lands, Division of St. Croix (D.C. Criminal Action No. 92-cr-00113-2)

Argued April 17, 1995 Before: BECKER, NYGAARD and ROTH, Circuit Judges Opinion Filed: December 19, 1995

______________________ ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_______________________
IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above c ase, filed on December 19, 1995, be amended as follows: 1. Please delete the second paragraph in Part I.A o f Judge Becker's concurring and dissenting opinion, including footno te 1. 2. At the end of the third sentence in the first pa ragraph of Part I.A.1 of Judge Becker's concurring and dissenting o pinion (which reads "See USSG ? 2F1.1(b)."), please add the following f ootnote: "Except where noted, my discussion is based on the 1988 Guideline s." BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward R. Becker Circuit Judge

DATED: March 25, l996 ??

### (..continued)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5499 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5499

 To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from Oil 
    Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2010

 Mr. Mica (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Petri, Mr. Coble, Mr. 
   Duncan, Mr. Ehlers, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Westmoreland, Mrs. Miller of 
    Michigan, Mr. Cao, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Graves, Mr. Shuster, and Mr. 
   Fleming) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from Oil 
    Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

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

SECTION 1. ADVANCES FROM OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND FOR ``DEEPWATER 
              HORIZON'' OIL SPILL.

    Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2752) 
is amended in the second sentence--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Coast Guard''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
        following: ``and (2) in the case of the discharge of oil that 
        began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and sinking 
        of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, may, 
        without further appropriation, obtain 1 or more advances from 
        the Fund as needed, up to a maximum of $100,000,000 for each 
        advance, with the total amount of all advances not to exceed 
        the amounts available under section 9509(c)(2) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986, and within 7 days of each advance, shall 
        notify Congress of the amount advanced and the facts and 
        circumstances necessitating the advance''.

SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5591 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5591

   To designate the facility of the Federal Aviation Administration 
located at Spokane International Airport in Spokane, Washington, as the 
                ``Ray Daves Air Traffic Control Tower''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2010

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the facility of the Federal Aviation Administration 
located at Spokane International Airport in Spokane, Washington, as the 
                ``Ray Daves Air Traffic Control Tower''.

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

SECTION 1. RAY DAVES AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the Federal Aviation 
Administration located at Spokane International Airport in Spokane, 
Washington, shall be known and designated as the ``Ray Daves Air 
Traffic Control Tower''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ray Daves 
Air Traffic Control Tower''.
                                 <all>
```
June 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.H., A CHILD

NO. 14-14-01029-CV

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed 

December 17, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected 

the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court 

below AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.