alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-02-0117 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L D AUGUST 21 , 2002

______________________________ DAV ID JOECORTE Z,

Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 47 TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNT Y; NO. 13,679-A; HON. DAVID L. GLEASON, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. Da vid Joe Cortez (appellant) appeals his conviction for aggravated assault. Pursuant to a p lea of guilty, but without benefit of an agreed recom menda tion from th e State as to punishm ent, the trial court found him guilty and assessed punishm ent at fifteen years in t he Te xa s D epa rtm ent of C orrect ionsIns titu tion al D ivis ion. Ap pella nt n ow app eals his conviction. Appella nt’s appointed cou n sel has filed a motion to w ithdraw, together w ith an1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 -45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1 8 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 Anders 1 brief, wherei n sh e certi fies that, after diligently searching the record, she has concluded that appellant’s appeal is without me rit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel has attached a copy o f

a letter sent to appellant info rm ing him of cou nsel’s b elief that t here
was no r eve rsib le er ror

and of a ppe llant ’s righ t to app eal pro se. By letter dated July 11, 2002, this

cou rt n otif

ied a ppe llant

of h is rig ht to file

his own brief or response by August 7, 2002, if he wished todo so. To date, appellant has failed to file a response or a m otion for extension of t ime to file sam e. In her Ander

s brief, appellant’s counsel explained why she concluded that no arg uab le basis for

appeal existed. S he considered such things as the 1) sufficiency of the indictment

to state an offense and invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction, 2) pre-trial motions regarding appellant’s juvenile record to be used at punishme ntwhich are perm itted by the Texas Family Code, §58. 007(g), 3) voluntariness of appellant’s plea and the statut ory admon itions given by the trial court, 4) exist ence of evidence supporting the finding of gu il t, an d 5 ) f ac t th at pu ni sh ment was a sse sse d wi th in th e r an ge al lo wed by l aw. Thereafter , we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to u ncover an y error, reversible or otherwise, pursuantto Stafford v. S tate , 813 S.W.2d 50 3 ( Te x. Crim. A pp. 1991). Our ow n review not only confirmed t he accuracy of appellate counsel’s repres entations but also fa i led to reveal any error. Accordingly, the m otion to withdraw is granted and the j udgme nt is affirmed.3 Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish.
8/9/2012

 Obligations 

% Total 

Obligations Fixed Price Cost T&M/LH Other Competed

Not 

Competed

Not 

Available for 

Competition Blank Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Small 

Business SDB

8(a) 

Program VOSB SDVOSB HUBZone WOSB

D399 OTHER ADP TELECOMMUNICATIONS $ 42,973,462.92 22% 22% 0% 60% 18% 77% 6% 0% 17% 9% 26% 30% 35% 35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

R408 PROGRAM MANAGENENT/SUPPORT SERVICES $ 25,113,475.55 13% 12% 0% 12% 0% 66% 11% 23% 0% 1% 22% 42% 34% 78% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9%

D301 ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT $ 20,337,416.12 11% 14% 81% 5% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 33% 56% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Biggest Percentage of Obligations

D399 OTHER ADP TELECOMMUNICATIONS $ 42,973,462.92 22% 22% 0% 60% 18% 77% 6% 0% 17% 9% 26% 30% 35% 35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

R408 PROGRAM MANAGENENT/SUPPORT SERVICES $ 25,113,475.55 13% 12% 0% 12% 0% 66% 11% 23% 0% 1% 22% 42% 34% 78% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9%

D301 ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT $ 20,337,416.12 11% 14% 81% 5% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 33% 56% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

D307 AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS $ 12,144,254.70 6% 48% 0% 52% 0% 54% 46% 0% 0% 7% 21% 29% 43% 0% 0% 0% 27% 0% 0% 0%

R499 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 11,863,769.16 6% 56% 0% 44% 0% 78% 18% 0% 4% 42% 16% 11% 31% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

R424 EXPERT WITNESS $ 8,940,436.00 5% 12% 0% 88% 0% 1% 97% 2% 0% 12% 21% 20% 46% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

D316 TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS$ 8,203,182.99 4% 31% 69% 18% 0% 31% 69% 0% 0% 15% 33% 11% 41% 35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

R710 FINANCIAL SERVICES $ 6,478,226.00 3% 0% 0% 100% 0% 84% 16% 0% 0% 13% 41% 34% 11% 15% 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

S206 GUARD SERVICES $ 6,273,275.60 3% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

D302 ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $ 4,744,792.32 2% 100% 0% 0% 0% 86% 14% 0% 0% 0% 15% 85% 0% 69% 42% 29% 19% 17% 0% 0%

 Special Interest Functions

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

FY-11 Standard Inventory Summary Contract Type Analysis Competition Analysis

(as % of PSC obligations)

Time of Obligation Analysis

(as % of PSC obligations) (as % of PSC obligations)

Small Business Analysis

(as % of PSC obligations)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

August 25, 2021

In the Matter of

Sunburst Acquisitions V, Inc.,

File No. 500-1

ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF

TRADING

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Sunburst Acquisitions V, 

Inc. (“SGIL1”) (CIK No. 1063489), a delinquent Colorado corporation located in Hong Kong

with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 ("Exchange Act") Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the 

Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-K for the period 

ended December 31, 2018. On July 8, 2021, the Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance 

(“Corporation Finance”) sent a delinquency letter to SGIL requesting compliance with its 

periodic filing requirements, but SGIL did not receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to 

maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 

of Regulation S-T, 17 C.F.R. Section 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual). As of 

July 28, 2021, the common stock of SGIL was quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets 

Group Inc. (formerly “Pink Sheets”) (“OTC Link”), had three market makers, and was eligible 

for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3). 

 

1 The short form of each issuer’s name is also its stock symbol.
2

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors 

require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is 

ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the 

securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on 

August 26, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 9, 2021.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Devan EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-8047.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2002.

Decided May 17, 2002.

Donald Devan Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Kenneth Davis Bell, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Donald Devan Edwards appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error, as Edwards improperly invoked the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to collaterally attack a criminal judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Edwards’ motion for reconsideration. 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.*
### §484a. Exchange of lands in national forests; public schools; deposit of funds by school authority with insufficient exchange land; limitations on use

Whenever an exchange of land is proposed by a State, county, or municipal government or public school district or other public school authority under sections 485 and 486 of this title or other authority under which the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to exchange national forest lands or other lands administered by the Forest Service, if the State, county, or municipal government or public school authority proposing the exchange has insufficient land to offer, the exchange may be completed upon deposit with the Secretary of Agriculture of a portion or all of the value of the selected land. Any amount so deposited shall be covered into a special fund in the Treasury which when appropriated shall be available until expended by the Secretary of Agriculture for the acquisition of lands in the same State as the selected lands and which are determined by him to be suitable for the same purposes as the selected lands. Lands so acquired shall have the same status and shall be subject to the same laws, regulations, and rules as the selected lands.

The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to the conveyance in exchange of more than eighty acres to any one State, county, or municipal government or public school district or other public school authority. Lands may be conveyed to any State, county, or municipal government pursuant to this section only if the lands were being utilized by such entities on January 12, 1983. Lands so conveyed may be used only for the purposes for which they were being used prior to conveyance.

(Pub. L. 90–171, Dec. 4, 1967, 81 Stat. 531; Pub. L. 97–465, §8, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2536.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1983—Pub. L. 97–465 inserted references to State, county, or municipal government in three places in existing provisions and inserted provision authorizing the conveyance of lands to any State, county, or municipal government pursuant to this section only if the lands were being utilized by such entities on January 12, 1983, and requiring that lands so conveyed be used only for the purposes for which they were being used prior to conveyance.

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

#### Short Title

This section is popularly known as the Sisk Act.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 3.4



                                 AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS


     On March 10, 1999, the Board of Directors of Hilton Hotels Corporation
approved an amendment to the Corporation's By-Laws, which added a new article
that reads as follows:

                             "Stockholder Communications 

43.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these By-Laws, to the
     extent permitted under applicable law at any time, the Corporation is
     authorized to communicate with stockholders electronically using, without
     limitation, telephone, internet or any other computer based technology, to
     provide reports, proxy statements and other information to stockholders and
     to permit voting by stockholders at stockholders meetings."
### §471d. Additional forest reserves in California

There is reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy or sale under the laws of the United States, and set apart as reserved forest lands, as provided in section 471c of this title, and subject to all the limitations and provisions therein contained, the following lands, to wit: Township 17 south, range 30 east of the Mount Diablo meridian, excepting sections 31, 32, 33, and 34 of said township, included in section 41 of this title. And there is also reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy or sale under the laws of the United States, and set apart as forest lands, subject to like limitations, conditions, and provisions, all of townships 15 and 16 south, of ranges 29 and 30 east of the Mount Diablo meridian. And there is also reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy or sale under the laws of the United States, and set apart as reserved forest lands under like limitations, restrictions, and provisions, sections 5 and 6 in township 14 south, range 28, east of Mount Diablo meridian, and also sections 31 and 32 of township 13 south, range 28 east of the same meridian. Nothing in this section or sections 55, 61, and 471c of this title, shall authorize rules or contracts touching the protection and improvement of said reservations, beyond the sums that may be received by the Secretary of the Interior under the foregoing provisions, or authorize any charge against the Treasury of the United States.

(Oct. 1, 1890, ch. 1263, §3, 26 Stat. 651.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 45 of this title.
§ 802.16 Administrative appeal. ( a ) A requester may appeal an Agency initial determination when: ( 1 ) Access to records has been denied in whole or in part; or
( 2 ) It has been determined that no responsive records exist.
( b ) Appeals of initial determinations must be made within 30 days of the receipt of the letter denying the request. Both the envelope and the letter of appeal should be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, 633 Indiana Avenue, NW., Room 1220, Washington, DC 20004 and must be clearly marked “Privacy Act Appeal.”
( c ) The General Counsel will make an appeal determination within 30 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) from the date of receipt of the appeal. However, for a good reason, this time limit may be extended. If, after review, the General Counsel determines that additional information should be released, it will accompany the appeal response. If, after review, the General Counsel determines to uphold the initial review, we will inform you of that decision.
# Official Journal L 176/8 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 176 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 488 July 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 176

English edition

Legislation

Volume 488 July 2005

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission |
| | * | Commission Decision of 14 December 2004 concerning the levy on meat purchases (rendering levy) implemented in France
  (notified under document number C(2004) 4770) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Decision of 15 June 2005 amending Annexes I and II to Decision 2002/308/EC establishing lists of approved zones and approved farms with regard to one or more of the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN)
  (notified under document number C(2005) 1766)

   (1) | 30 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

Commission

*

Commission Decision of 14 December 2004 concerning the levy on meat purchases (rendering levy) implemented in France
  (notified under document number C(2004) 4770)

(notified under document number C(2004) 4770)

1

*

Commission Decision of 15 June 2005 amending Annexes I and II to Decision 2002/308/EC establishing lists of approved zones and approved farms with regard to one or more of the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN)
  (notified under document number C(2005) 1766)

   (1)

(notified under document number C(2005) 1766)

30

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

KEVIN DUANE HICKMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10325 

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00246-MCE-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Kevin Duane Hickman appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon the second revocation of his 

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hickman contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-10325 

improper sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), namely, the seriousness of 

his new criminal conduct and the need to promote respect for the law. We review 

unpreserved claims of procedural error for plain error, see United States v. 

Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there 

is none. The district court’s explanation reflects that it permissibly considered 

Hickman’s ongoing poor performance on supervised release, which had been 

revoked once before, and mentioned his new offenses in connection with its

consideration of Hickman’s significant criminal history. See United States v. 

Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may consider the 

seriousness of the offenses underlying the revocation “to a lesser degree as part of 

the criminal history of the violator”).

Hickman also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the within-Guidelines 

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is 

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality 

of the circumstances, including, as the district court highlighted, Hickman’s 

criminal history and performance on supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51;

Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63.

AFFIRMED.
### §469m. Repealed or Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 111–11, title VII, §7111, Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1199, which related to Women's Rights National Historical Park, was repealed in part and omitted in part. Subsec. (a), which enacted section 410ll–1 of this title, was omitted from the Code. Subsecs. (b) and (c) were repealed and restated in sections 308501 and 308502 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs, by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3272, which act enacted Title 54.
Case 15-73015-FJS Doc 187 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 10:59:49 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
#### § 660.501 Purpose.

The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe policies and procedures governing evaluations of defense access road needs, and administration of projects financed under the defense access roads and other defense related special highway programs.
§ 802.20 Accounting of disclosures. ( a ) We will provide an accounting of all disclosures of a record for five years or until the record is destroyed, whichever is longer, except that no accounting will be provided to the record subject for disclosures made to law enforcement agencies and no accounting will be made for: ( 1 ) Disclosures made under the FOIA;
( 2 ) Disclosures made within the agency; and
( 3 ) Disclosures of your record made with your written consent.
( b ) The accounting will include: ( 1 ) The date, nature, and purpose of the disclosure; and
( 2 ) The name and address of the person or entity to whom the disclosure is made.
( c ) You may request access to an accounting of disclosures of your record. Your request should be in accordance with the procedures in § 802.14. You will be granted access to an accounting of the disclosures of your record in accordance with the procedures of this part which govern access to the related record, excepting disclosures made for an authorized civil or criminal law enforcement agency as provided by subsection (c)(3) of the Privacy Act. You will be required to provide reasonable identification.
#### Jara Uzenda GOBBI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arthur Scott GOBBI, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1217.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Jara Uzenda Gobbi, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jara Uzenda Gobbi appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. Gob-bi’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised *950Gobbi that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Gobbi failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). pGobbi has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.*
### §470c. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 89–665, title I, §103, Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 916; Pub. L. 94–422, title II, §201(2), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1319; Pub. L. 96–515, title II, §203, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2993; Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4010, Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4759; Pub. L. 106–208, §5(a)(6), May 26, 2000, 114 Stat. 318, related to apportionment of grant funds. See section 302902(c) of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.