alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §750. Distribution of securities

The trustee may not distribute a security except under section 751 of this title.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2614.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

Section 750 forbids the trustee from distributing a security other than a customer name security. The term "distribution" refers to a distribution to customers in satisfaction of net equity claims and is not intended to preclude the trustee from liquidating securities under proposed 11 U.S.C. 748.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40580

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IGNACIO MARTINEZ-TOVAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CR-110-01

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

October 1, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ignacio Martinez-Tovar ("Martinez"), federal prisoner # 82731-

079, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his sentence for attempted

illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. Martinez

argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment

632 to the sentencing guidelines because the amendment clarified
No. 02-40580

-2-

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2's enhancement for deportation following an

aggravated felony conviction. 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a sentencing court may

reduce a term of imprisonment "based on a sentencing range that has

been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . , if

such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements

issued by the Sentencing Commission." Section 3582(c)(2) applies

only to amendments to the sentencing guidelines that operate

retroactively, as set forth in subsection (c) of the applicable

policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. See United States v. Drath,

89 F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Amendment 632 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), p.s.

Thus, an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on

Amendment 632 would not be consistent with the Sentencing

Commission's policy statement. See id. at 218. Amendment 632

therefore cannot be given retroactive effect in the context of an

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id.

In light of the foregoing, the district court lacked the

authority to reduce Martinez's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512, 515 & n.3

(5th Cir. 1994). The district court's order denying Martinez's

motion for reduction of sentence is AFFIRMED.
ex10-34.htm


    

      Exhibit
10.34

      


      EXHIBIT
C

      


      


      Additional Terms—Kevin P.
Freeland (the “Executive”)

      


      The
Executive and the Company agree that the following terms of the Company’s letter
offering employment to the Executive, dated January 14, 2008, and executed by
the Executive on January 16, 2008 (“Offer Letter”), shall continue in effect
following the execution of the Agreement:

      


      Assistance with Lease
Obligation

      


      The
Company agrees to provide the Executive assistance with his current business
lease obligation to protect him from any out of pocket costs. This assumes that
the Executive’s lease is not being paid for by the ongoing operation of
Executive’s business.  In addition, this assistance is predicated on
the Executive taking the appropriate steps to mitigate his
exposure.  For unmitigated out of pocket expenses the Company will
provide the Executive with reimbursement up to a maximum of
$350,000.  Any such reimbursements will be required to be paid back to
the Company if the Executive leaves the company within one year.

      


      Optimal Advantage
Contract

      


      To
provide the Executive assistant in transitioning his business, the Company
agrees to utilize Optimal Advantage for at least three months to work on its
supply chain optimization and custom mix projects.

      


      


      The
Executive and the Company agree that, as of the date of this Agreement, the
remaining obligations of the Company pursuant to the Offer Letter have been
performed by the Company or have been incorporated into the
Agreement.

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the
Executive have executed this Exhibit as of the effective date of the
Agreement.

      


       

      


       

      
        	Advance Auto Parts, Inc. 	 	 	Executive 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By: 	 	(SEAL) 	 	Print Name: Kevin P.
      Freeland 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Print
      Name: 	 	 	 	Signature: 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title: 	 	 	 	Address: 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Address: 	
                5008
      Airport Road

                  Roanoke, VA 24012
# C_2007042EN.01003301.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/33

---

Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Commission v TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz

(Case T-396/06)

(2007/C 42/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Šimerdová, R.Bierwagen (lawyer))

Applicant:

Defendant: TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz GmbH

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | order the defendant to reimburse the applicant EUR 32,440.80 plus 4 % interest with effect from 30 November 1999; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to reimburse the applicant EUR 32,440.80 plus 4 % interest with effect from 30 November 1999;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant concluded an agreement on Community activities in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 — 1998) (1), in which it was agreed that the Court of First Instance would have jurisdiction over disputes connected with this agreement. The subject of the project was the construction and commissioning, on a trial basis, of a leather drying plant.

1

The Commission terminated this agreement by letter of 18 February 1999, on the ground that no proper final report was submitted to it. The applicant submits, in this connection, that the statements of accounts presented to it by the defendant subsequently were only partially approved because a number of documents were missing. The remaining amount has been demanded by the applicant on several occasions and is the subject of the present action.

---

(1)  Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) (OJ 1998 L 334, p. 87).

1

---
### §1701d–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–609, title V, §503(3), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1785

Section, acts Aug. 7, 1956, ch. 1029, title VI, §602, 70 Stat. 1113; May 25, 1967, Pub. L. 90–19, §13(b), 81 Stat. 24; Aug. 12, 1970, Pub. L. 91–375, §6(e), 84 Stat. 776, related to research and provided for: authorization for specific programs; contracts and working agreements, amount of authorization, appropriations, duration of contract, and unexpended balances of appropriations; dissemination of data; acquisition and use of data; and authority of Secretary. See sections 1701z–1 to 1701z–4 of this title.
§ 13.16 Disqualification of Reviewing Official or ALJ. ( a ) A Reviewing Official or ALJ in a particular case may disqualify himself or herself at any time.
( b ) A party may file a motion for disqualification of a Reviewing Official or an ALJ. Such motion will be accompanied by an affidavit alleging personal bias or other reason for disqualification.
( c ) Such motion and affidavit will be filed promptly upon the party's discovery of reasons requiring disqualification, or such objections will be deemed waived.
( d ) Such affidavit will state specific facts that support the party's belief that personal bias or other reason for disqualification exists and the time and circumstances of the party's discovery of such facts. It will be accompanied by a certificate of the Representative of record that it is Made in good faith.
( e ) ( 1 ) If the ALJ determines that a Reviewing Official is disqualified, the ALJ will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.
( 2 ) If the ALJ disqualifies himself or herself, the case will be reassigned promptly to another ALJ.
( 3 ) If the ALJ denies a motion to disqualify, the Authority Head may determine the matter only as part of his or her review of the Initial Decision upon appeal, if any.
#### CHAPEL HILL COUNTRY CLUB v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL

No. 102P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 171

Petition by plaintiffs (Du Bose et al.) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 1990. Petition by plaintiffs (Pendergraph) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 1990. Petition by plaintiff (Chapel Hill Country Club, Inc.) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 1990.
#### STATE v. JOYCE

No. 147P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 464

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 June 1990.
-  Home 

# Special Permits 10751

SP10751_2009100507.pdf (84.86 KB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1077 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1077

 To dedicate the new Amtrak station in New York, New York, to Senator 
                        Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 1999

Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Roth, 
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg, 
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lieberman, 
  Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Bayh) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To dedicate the new Amtrak station in New York, New York, to Senator 
                        Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN STATION.

    The Amtrak station to be constructed in the James A. Farley Post 
Office Building in New York, New York, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan Station''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Amtrak station referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan Station''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 81.58 How long do tribal members have to gather the signatures?

Tribal members have one year from the date of the first signature to gather the required signatures.
### §142. Banks in reserve cities; reserves

National banking associations located in reserve cities or central reserve cities shall maintain reserves provided for in section 462 of this title for banks so located.

(R.S. §5191 (part); Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §§19, 27, 38 Stat. 270, 274; Aug. 4, 1914, ch. 225, 38 Stat. 682; Aug. 15, 1914, ch. 252, 38 Stat. 691; June 21, 1917, ch. 32, §10, 40 Stat. 239.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 462 of this title, referred to in text, was omitted from the Code. See section 461 of this title.

#### Codification

R.S. §5191 derived from act June 3, 1864, ch. 106, §31, 13 Stat. 108, which was the National Bank Act, and act Mar. 1, 1872, ch. 22, 17 Stat. 32. See section 38 of this title.

Some of the other provisions of R.S. §5191 were classified to section 141 of this title prior to its omission from the Code, some are classified to section 143 of this title, and some were not included in the Code.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Termination of Central Reserve Cities

Central reserve cities terminated, see section 3(b) of Pub. L. 86–114 set out as a note under former section 141 of this title.
### §8452. Civilian teachers: number; compensation

(a) The Secretary of the Navy may employ as many civilians as professors, instructors, and lecturers at the Naval Academy as he considers necessary.

(b) The compensation of persons employed under this section is as prescribed by the Secretary.

(c) The Secretary of the Navy may, notwithstanding the provisions of subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5 or section 6101 of such title, prescribe for persons employed under this section the following:

(1) The work schedule, including hours of work and tours of duty, set forth with such specificity and other characteristics as the Secretary determines appropriate.

(2) Any premium pay or compensatory time off for hours of work or tours of duty in excess of the regularly scheduled hours or tours of duty.

(d) The Secretary, to the extent he considers proper, may delegate the authority conferred by this section to any person in the Department of the Navy, with or without the authority to make successive redelegations.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 428, §6952; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title XI, §1107(b), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 778; renumbered §8452, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(c)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6952 | 34 U.S.C. 1071 (as applicable to Naval Academy). | Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 756, §7(a) (as applicable to Naval Academy), 60 Stat. 854. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 412a. | Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 756, §39, 60 Stat. 858. |

The words "for the proper instruction of naval personnel" and the words "be paid out of naval appropriations" are omitted as surplusage.

In subsection (c) the words "except the authority to prescribe regulations" are omitted, since 34 U.S.C. 1071 contains no authority for the Secretary of the Navy to prescribe regulations for the administration of that section.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 8452, added Pub. L. 85–861, §1(180)(E), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1532, provided that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a medical or dental officer may be promoted to temporary grade of captain at any time after first anniversary of date upon which he graduated from a medical, osteopathic, or dental school, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–513, title II, §207, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2884, effective Sept. 15, 1981.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6952 of this title as this section.

1999—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 106–65 added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
#### § 173.14 Further requirements authorized.

The project engineer is authorized to incorporate into any proposed permit to meet the needs of any particular case, subject to the approval of the Secretary, such further special requirements as may be agreed upon by him and the applicant, such requirements to be consistent with the general purposes of this part.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 613 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 300
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 613

                          [Report No. 106-942]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 3244) to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the 
 sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States 
and countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution 
    and enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and 
                 assistance to victims of trafficking.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2000

Ms. Pryce of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 3244) to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the 
 sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States 
and countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution 
    and enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and 
                 assistance to victims of trafficking.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
3244) to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the sex trade, 
slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States and 
countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution and 
enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and assistance 
to victims of trafficking. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report 
shall be considered as read.

                                                 House Calendar No. 300

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 613

                          [Report No. 106-942]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 3244) to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the 
 sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States 
and countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution 
    and enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and 
                 assistance to victims of trafficking.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 5, 2000

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
# C_2006248EN.01002602.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/26

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4386 — Cinven/Aero Invest)

(2006/C 248/17)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 October 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4386. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4386. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 700.827 Custody of Archaeological resources. ( a ) Archaeological resources excavated or removed from the New Lands remain the property of the Navajo Nation.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Johnson, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[823 NYS2d 545]

*485In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination terminating the petitioner’s probationary employment with the Department of Design and Construction of the City of New York, the appeal, as limited by the appellants’ brief, is from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated February 25, 2005, as annulled the determination, reinstated the petitioner to the position of mechanical engineer, level I, retroactive to the last date of his employment, with full back pay and all accrued emoluments of employment, and directed that the petitioner be assigned work commensurate with his civil service title.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner was a probationary employee with the Department of Design and Construction of the City of New York (hereinafter the DDC) and, as such, his employment could be terminated for any reason, so long as the termination was not in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible reason, or in violation of statutory or decisional law *(see Matter of Swinton v Safir,*93 NY2d 758, 763 [1999]; *Matter of York v McGuire,*63 NY2d 760 [1984]; *Matter of Robinson v Health & Hosps. Corp.,*29 AD3d 807 [2006]; *Walsh v New York State Thruway Auth.,*24 AD3d 755, 757 [2005]; *Matter of Hernandez v City of White Plains,*301 AD2d 523, 524 [2003]). The petitioner claims that his employment was terminated in retaliation for his filing of a union grievance. Thus, the petitioner had the burden of proving (a) that he was engaged in protected union activity, (b) that the DDC had knowledge of the activity, and (c) that he would not have been discharged from employment but for the activity *(see Matter of Rockville Ctr. Teachers Assn., NYSUT, AFT, AFL-CIO v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.,*281 AD2d 425, 425-426 [2001]).

The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner established a prima facie case of improper motivation. The burden of persuasion, therefore, shifted to the DDC to establish that its actions were motivated by a legitimate business reason *(see Matter of Board of Educ. of Deer Park Union Free School Dist. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.,*167 AD2d 398, 399 [1990]). The DDC failed to meet this burden, and the Supreme Court properly, inter alia, annulled the DDC’s deter*486mination and reinstated the petitioner to the position of mechanical engineer, level I, with full back pay. Santucci, J.E, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.