alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Rios, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of intentional and felony murder, defendant contends that the court’s charge was incorrect on the standards by which to evaluate reasonable doubt, credibility and identification testimony. Those contentions were not preserved for our review and, in any event, are lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 2671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-844]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 2671]]

                Presidential Determination No. 95-11 of December 30, 
                1994

                
Determination Pursuant to Section 2(b)(2) of the 
                Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as 
                Amended

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of the Migration and 
                Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 
                2601(b)(2), I hereby designate refugees and displaced 
                persons from the Newly Independent States of the former 
                Soviet Union as qualifying for assistance under section 
                2(b)(2) of the Act, and determine that such assistance 
                will contribute to the foreign policy interests of the 
                United States.

                You are authorized and directed to inform the 
                appropriate committees of the Congress of this 
                determination and to publish this determination in the 
                Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, December 30, 1994.

[FR Doc. 95-844
Filed 1-9-95; 3 pm]
Billing code 4710-10-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8470]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 2290-006-CA]


Southern California Edison Company; Renotice of Availability of 
Draft Environmental Assessment

March 31, 1995.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for new license 
for an existing licensed hydropower project on the Kern River owned and 
operated by the Southern California Edison Company: the Kern River No. 
3 Project No. 2290, located in Kern and Tulare Counties, California. 
Subsequently, the Commission's staff prepared a Draft Environmental 
Assessment (DEA) that discusses the relicensing of the project.
    In the DEA, staff evaluates the potential environmental impacts 
that would result from the continued operation of the project. Staff 
concludes that relicensing the project with appropriate enhancement 
measures would not constitute a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch, Room 3104, of the Commission's offices at 941 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix Project No. 2290 to the first page 
of all comments.
    For further information, please contact Kathleen Sherman, 
Environmental Coordinator, at (202) 219-2834.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8470 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Registrant's audited financial statements for the year ended December
31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to those
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK> 0000895993
<NAME> RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST II
       <S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             0     
<SECURITIES>                              12,735,268<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              12,407<F2>
<PP&E>                                             0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            12,747,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        615,270<F3>
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                12,132,405<F4>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              12,747,675
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1,150,056<F5>
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           2,847,867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,704,811)<F5>
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1,704,811)<F5>
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,704,811)<F5>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (7,242)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (7,242)

<FN>
<F1>Investments in power project partnerships and face  value($2,140,866)of note
for sale of San Diego Project.
<F2>Includes $8,819 due from affiliates.
<F3>Includes $214,373 due to affiliates.
<F4>Represents Investor Shares of beneficial interest in Trust with
capital accounts of $12,212,324 less managing shareholder's accumulated deficit
of $79,919.
<F5>Includes writedown of investment of $2,347,330.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. WILLIE LEE GALLMAN.

(Filed 15 June, 1936.)

Homicide H b — Evidence of defendant’s guilt of murder in the first degree held sufficient to be submitted to the jury*

Evidence for the State tending to show that after a fight between defendant and another, and after both had left the scene, defendant returned some thirty minutes later, overtook his antagonist as he was hauling wood in the pursuit of his business, and shot him three times, inflicting mortal wounds, *is held*sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the charge of murder in the first degree, and defendant’s contention, based solely on his own evidence, and with entire disregard to the State’s evidence, that there was no evidence of premeditation and deliberation, is untenable.

Appeal by defendant from *Olem&nb, J.,*at January Term, 1936, of Eoesyth.

Criminal prosecution, .tried upon indictment charging tbe defendant with tbe murder of one John Gaston.

Yerdict: Guilty of murder in tbe first degree.

Judgment: Death by asphyxiation.

Tbe prisoner appeals, assigning errors.

*289
      *Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Bridón for the State, appellee.*

*John D. Slawter for defendant, appellant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The evidence an bebalf of the State tends to show that on 31 December, 1935, John Gaston and another were shooting pool for money at a pool room in the city of Winston-Salem. The defendant was present, acting as stakeholder. Upon winning the game, as he contended, Gaston demanded the stakes, which the defendant declined to give him. An argument ensued and resulted in a fight between the defendant and Gaston, his son and brother, who were also present. The defendant broke away and ran. In about thirty minutes he returned with a 22-rifle. Gaston and his son, in the meantime, had gone about their business hauling wood. The defendant overtook them at Lucy Gunter’s home. As Gaston started off with his truck, the defendant shot him three times, inflicting wounds from which he died several days thereafter.

The defendant contended that the deceased was alighting from the truck in a threatening manner, and that he shot in self-defense. The jury accepted the State’s version of the killing and rejected the defendant’s plea.

The defendant’s first contention that no evidence of premeditation and deliberation appears on the record is without substantial merit, as it is based solely upon his own evidence, and disregards entirely the evidence offered by the State. The motions to nonsuit on the capital charge, made under the Mason Act, C. S., 4643, were properly overruled. *S. v. Buffkin,*209 N. C., 117; *S. v. Evans,*198 N. C., 82, 150 S. E., 678; *S. v. Miller,*197 N. C., 445, 149 S. E., 590; *S. v. Lipscomb,*134 N. C., 689, 47 S. E., 44.

The remaining exceptions are equally untenable. They have all been examined, with the care which a capital case imposes, and found wanting in merit. It would be only a matter of repetition to consider them *seriatim*in an opinion.

The defendant has been tried in strict conformity to the established rules and sentenced as the law commands.

The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17028-17029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8185]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 675

[Docket No. 950206040-5040-01; I.D. 032995A]


Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Inshore 
Component Pollock in the Aleutian Islands Subarea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock by vessels 
catching pollock for processing by the inshore component in the 
Aleutian Islands subarea (AI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding 
the pollock roe season allowance of pollock for the inshore component 
in the Aleutian Islands subarea.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 30, 1995, 
until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing 
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
    The allowance of pollock TAC for vessels catching pollock for 
processing by the inshore component in the AI was established by the 
final 1995 initial groundfish specifications (60 FR 8479, February 14, 
1995) as 16,838 metric tons (mt).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), determined, 
in accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(8), that the [[Page 17029]] allowance 
of pollock TAC for the inshore component in the AI soon will be 
reached. Therefore, the Regional Director established a directed 
fishing allowance of 15,838 mt after determining that 1,000 mt will be 
taken as incidental catch in directed fishing for other species in the 
AI. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock by 
operators of vessels catching pollock for processing by the inshore 
component in the AI.
    Directed fishing standards for applicable gear types may be found 
in the regulations at Sec. 675.20(h).

Classification

    This action is taken under Sec. 675.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 29, 1995.
David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-8185 Filed 3-30-95; 3:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### Dana HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48704.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 17, 1994.

Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Ow-enson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Dana Hayes appeals the dismissal of her Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief. The motion court ruled that the motion was filed after the statutory deadline. We affirm the motion court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b).
[Cite as State v. McClurkin, 127 Ohio St.3d 121, 2010-Ohio-5268.] 

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. MCCLURKIN, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as State v. McClurkin, 127 Ohio St.3d 121, 2010-Ohio-5268.] 

Discretionary appeal accepted and cause remanded to the court of appeals for 

application of State v. Horner. 

(No. 2010-1046 — Submitted September 14, 2010 — Decided 

November 2, 2010.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA2007-03-071, 

2010-Ohio-1938. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted, and the cause is remanded to 

the court of appeals for application of State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466, 2010-

Ohio-3830, 935 N.E.2d 26. 

 BROWN, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and 

CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent and would not accept the 

discretionary appeal. 

__________________ 

 LaShawn McClurkin, pro se. 

_____________________
#### CARSON NATURAL BRIDGE AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Eric SHIELDS, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 66499.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 29, 1995.

Joseph S. Rubin, Clayton, for appellant.

Edward Lander, Lander & Berkowitz, P.C., Clayton, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Eric Shields, appeals the judgment, in a judge-tried trial *de novo*of a small claims court case, in favor of plaintiff, Carson Natural Bridge Automobile Service, on its claim and against defendant on his counterclaim. Plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of $900.00. We affirm.

The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5724

A.W. Chesterton Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4749

Duravant LLC and FMH Conveyors Americas:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests and the 

request failed to show that this particular product is available only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130340 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, KING OF THE WIND FARMS, INC., Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 130340 

 COA: 257097 

Ingham CC: 03-002015-AW

MICHIGAN COMMISSION OF 

AGRICULTURE and MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0424 

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. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3763

Cummins Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6658]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-29,397; 29,397A; 29,398]


Shell Oil Co.; Shell Western E & P Inc. (SWEPI) A/K/A 
CalResources, LLC, Bakersfield, CA and all Other (SWEPI) Operations in 
California A/K/A CalResources, LLC; Shell Oil Company, Shell 
Development Company, Martinez, CA; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 16, 1994, applicable 
to all SWEPI workers of Shell Oil Company in Bakersfield, California 
and in other locations in the State of California and the Shell 
Development Company in Martinez, California. The certification notice 
was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 1994, (59 FR 10429).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that 
Shell Oil Company's SWEPI operations have been reincorporated in the 
state of California as CalResources, LLC. Accordingly, the Department 
is amending the certification to show this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers who were adversely affected by increased imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-29,397 and TA-W-29,397A is 
hereby issued as follows:

    All workers of Shell Oil Company, Shell Western E & P, Inc., 
(SWEPI) also known as (a/k/a) CalResources, LLC Bakersfield, 
California (TA-W-29,397); other SWEPI operations in California, a/k/
a CalResources, LLC (TA-W-29,397A) and the Shell Development 
Company, Martinez, California (TA-W-29,398) engaged in employment 
related to the production of crude oil and natural gas who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 
13, 1993 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 6th day of March, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-6658 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M