alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50270 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSÉ FERNANDO LUCERO-HERNANDEZ, also known as José Hernandez Lucero, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-99-CR-1224-2-DB

-------------------- October 17, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * José Fernando Lucero-Hernandez (“Lucero”) appeals from his conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. Lucero contends that the Government infringed on his right to compulsory process of José Ayala. According to Lucero, the prosecutor made clear that Ayala would lose sentencing adjustments for acceptance of responsibility and his minor role in the offense were he to testify on Lucero’s behalf, intimidating Lucero into invoking his privilege against self-No. 00-50270 -2- incrimination. Lucero contends that the district court erred by permitting Ayala not to testify without stating personally that he was invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. Lucero cannot demonstrate error, plain or otherwise, on his contention that the Government substantially interfered with his right of compulsory process, a contention that he raises for the first time on appeal. United States v. Thompson , 130 F.3d 676, 686 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 524 U.S. 920 (1998); United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). The record demonstrates that Ayala invoked his right against self-incrimination on the advice of counsel. Neither counsel’s comments that he wished to avoid losing the benefits of Ayala’s plea bargain nor the prosecutor’s recitation of the terms of his understanding with Ayala indicated that Ayala necessarily would be punished in any way were he to testify on Lucero’s behalf. Lucero has failed to brief adequately his contention that the district court erred by allowing Ayala not to testify without stating personally that he was invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. See United States v. Heacock , 31 F.3d 249, 258 (5th Cir. 1994). We do not consider that contention. Lucero’s appeal is frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The appeal therefore is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 No. 333-122171) pertaining to the 2002 Stock IncentivePlan, (Form S-8 No. 333-101298) pertaining to the 2002 Stock IncentivePlan, the 2001 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, the 2001 Service Award OptionPlan and the 1998 Stock Option Plan of SI International, Inc., (Form S-8 No. 333-111551) pertaining to theDeferred Compensation Plan of SI International, Inc., and (Form S-3 No.333-113827) pertaining to $100,000,000 common stock, preferred stock,depositary shares, warrants and debt securities offered by SI International,Inc. of our reports dated March 7, 2005, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of SI International, Inc., SIInternational, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of SI International, Inc., included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 25, 2004.

 

 

 

McLean, Virginia

March 7, 2005

 

----
§ 4.1352 Who may file; where to file; when to file. ( a ) The applicant or operator may file a request for hearing on OSM's preliminary finding of permanent permit ineligibility.
( b ) The request for hearing must be filed with the Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, within 30 days of receipt of the preliminary finding by the applicant or operator.
( c ) Failure to file a timely request constitutes a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing before OSM makes its final finding concerning permanent permit ineligibility. Any untimely request will be denied.
[67 FR 61511, Oct. 1, 2002, as amended at 88 FR 5796, Jan. 30, 2023]
Exhibit 4.471

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 185031 dated October 27, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Mobile radio telephone communication services in the allocated telecommunications network

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until October 27, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated October 27, 2020 No. 467-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Terlyakov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here
    	
 
    
	
Official seal:
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS
    	
 
    
	
COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
    	
 
    
	
IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    
	
OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION
    	
 
    
	
TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 122058
San Mateo, CA
                                                          March 31, 1999
                                                          $100,000

                             SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

For  value  received,  the  undersigned,  Hypermedia  Communications,   Inc.,  a
California  corporation  ("Borrower") promises to pay MK GVD Fund ("Lender") the
principal sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), with interest from the
date  hereof at a rate of ten percent  (10%) per annum,  which  amount  shall be
secured  by all of the  assets  of  Borrower.  Said  principal  shall be due and
payable on demand by  Lender,  which  demand may be made at any time,  but in no
event shall the principal be paid later than one hundred eighty (180) days after
the date of this Note. This Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

In the event of liquidation,  merger, sale, or winding up of the company, Lender
shall be entitled to receive,  prior and in  preference  to any other holders of
debt or equity securities,  (except as provided in item 1. below), the principal
value of this Note plus accrued interest.

The  following is a statement of the rights of the Borrower of this Note and the
conditions to which this Note is subject,  to which the Borrower and Lender,  by
the acceptance of this Note agree:

         1. Subordination - Creditor subordinates to Business Finance ("BF") any
security  interest or lien that  Creditor  may have in any property of Borrower.
All Subordinated  Debt is subordinated in right of payment to all obligations of
Borrower to BF now existing or hereafter arising.

         2.  Security  Interest  - Borrower  hereby  grants to Lender a security
interest  in all assets of  Borrower  to secure  repayment  of the  indebtedness
represented  by this Note.  Borrower  hereby  represents and agrees that it will
take all actions  contemplated above including the execution of a UCC1 financing
statement,  which for the purposes of such  execution,  Borrower hereby appoints
Lender as its attorney-in-fact to execute such UCC1 financing statement.

         3. Attorneys' Fees - If any action or proceeding  shall be commenced to
enforce  this Note or any right  arising  in  connection  with  this  Note,  the
prevailing  party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover from
the other party the reasonable  attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by
such  prevailing   party  in  connection  with  such  action  or  proceeding  or
negotiation to avoid such action or proceeding.  In the event that any provision
of this Note should be deemed unlawful or unenforceable, such provision shall be
struck and the remainder  hereof shall be enforced to the fullest  extent of the
law.

         4.  Governing  Law - This Note is  issued  in and shall be  interpreted
under the laws of the State of California.

Issued this 31 day of March, 1999.

                                             Hypermedia Communications, Inc.



                                             By: __________________

                                             Title: ________________
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA

, Respondent

,

v.

RUDE ECHOHAWK FUENTEZ

, Petitioner

.

N o . 1 CA

- CR 12

- 0679 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mari c opa County

No. C R2000

- 151857
The Honorable Robert E. Miles

, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENI ED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Respondent

R ude Echohawk Fuentez

, Buckeye

Petitioner Pro SeSTATE v. FUENTEZ

Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould deliver ed the decision of the Court, in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

G O U L D

, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Rude Echohawk Fuentez petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for pos t

- conviction relief. Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judges Peter B. Swann and Jon W. Thompson have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 A jury convicted Fuentez of two counts of molestation of a child in 1986. After the State successfully challenged Fuentez’ s initial sentences on appeal, the trial court ultimately sentenced him to two

consecut ive terms of twenty

- three years’ imprisonment. Fuentez now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his fifth successive petition for
post

- conviction relief. 1 Fuentez argues the trial court should resentence him pursuant to more favorable sentencing provisions that beca me effective in 1994, approximately nin e years after he committed the offenses and eight years after his convictions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶3 We deny re lief

. “ A basic principle of criminal law requires

that an offender be sentenced under the laws in effect at the time he committed the offense for which he is being sentenced. ” State v. Newton

, 200 Ariz. 1, 2, ¶ 3, 21 P.3d 387, 388 (2001). Changes to the sentencing scheme that did not occur until 1994 have no application t o Fuentez’ s case.

1 The trial court incorre ctly identified this as Fuentez’ s fourth post

conviction relief proceeding.STATE v. FUENTEZ

Decision of the Court

3 ¶4 W e grant review and deny relief.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Waco Mammoth
National MonumentTexas
----

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid

(2005/C 270/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Women's Rights
National Historical Park
New York


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Catharine C. Paine
 Catharine C.  Paine signed the Declaration of Sentiments in 1848 and adopted the Bloomer costume a few years later. After traveling to Seattle with her husband, Methodist minister David E. Blaine, she opened the tiny settlement's first school in 1854.
 Last updated: October 6, 2022
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: 136 Fall Street
Seneca Falls,
NY
13148
 Phone: 315 568-0024 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
March 24, 2015

Mr. Kevin W. Glenn

2913 Palace Place

Murfreesboro, TN 37129

Dear Mr. Glenn:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your February 4, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0306), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSpace engineeringHuman productivity was studied for extravehicular tasks performed in microgravity, particularly including in-space assembly of truss structures and other large objects. Human factors research probed the anthropometric constraints imposed on microgravity task performance and the associated workstation design requirements. Anthropometric experiments included reach envelope tests conducted using the 3-D Acoustic Positioning System (3DAPS), which permitted measuring the range of reach possible for persons using foot restraints in neutral buoyancy, both with and without space suits. Much neutral buoyancy research was conducted using the support of water to simulate the weightlessness environment of space. It became clear over time that the anticipated EVA requirement associated with the Space Station and with in-space construction of interplanetary probes would heavily burden astronauts, and remotely operated robots (teleoperators) were increasingly considered to absorb the workload. Experience in human EVA productivity led naturally to teleoperation research into the remote performance of tasks through human controlled robots.Document ID19920001997Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsAlexander, Harold L.*(Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. Cambridge, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 29, 1991Subject CategoryMaterials ProcessingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:187820NASA-CR-187820Accession Number92N11215Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAGW-21Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920001997.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Bunker Hill: Taking the High Ground

Boston National Historical Park
### §7409. Action to enjoin flagrant political expenditures of section 501(c)(3) organizations

#### (a) Authority to seek injunction

#### (1) In general

If the requirements of paragraph (2) are met, a civil action in the name of the United States may be commenced at the request of the Secretary to enjoin any section 501(c)(3) organization from further making political expenditures and for such other relief as may be appropriate to ensure that the assets of such organization are preserved for charitable or other purposes specified in section 501(c)(3). Any action under this section shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the district in which such organization has its principal place of business or for any district in which it has made political expenditures. The court may exercise its jurisdiction over such action (as provided in section 7402(a)) separate and apart from any other action brought by the United States against such organization.

#### (2) Requirements

An action may be brought under subsection (a) only if—

(A) the Internal Revenue Service has notified the organization of its intention to seek an injunction under this section if the making of political expenditures does not immediately cease, and

(B) the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has personally determined that—

(i) such organization has flagrantly participated in, or intervened in (including the publication or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and

(ii) injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent future political expenditures.

#### (b) Adjudication and decree

In any action under subsection (a), if the court finds on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that—

(1) such organization has flagrantly participated in, or intervened in (including the publication or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and

(2) injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent future political expenditures,

the court may enjoin such organization from making political expenditures and may grant such other relief as may be appropriate to ensure that the assets of such organization are preserved for charitable or other purposes specified in section 501(c)(3).

#### (c) Definitions

For purposes of this section, the terms "section 501(c)(3) organization" and "political expenditures" have the respective meanings given to such terms by section 4955.

(Added Pub. L. 100–203, title X, §10713(a)(1), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–468.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7409 was renumbered section 7410 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. George A. Spiegelberg, Appellant, against Joseph Lilly et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents. [23 E. 92nd St., Borough of Manhattan.]

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### [§1240. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1901(a)(139), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1787]

Section, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 332, related to taxability to employee of termination payments.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1976, see section 1901(d) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as an Effective Date of 1976 Amendment note under section 2 of this title.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 701

 699

 696

 685

 662

 661

 662

 652

 647

 619

 588

 518

 527

 521

 516

 507

 491

 475

 492

 494

 488

 464

 460

 427

 395

 395

 389

 404

 691

 687

 681

 663

 634

 630

 631

 615

 615

 586

 513

 502

 515

 511

 497

 487

 478

 461

 466

 482

 465

 447

 429

 382

 380

 371

 380

 385

 697

 694

 689

 676

 652

 650

 653

 640

 635

 605

 558

 509

 520

 516

 504

 498

 484

 468

 483

 490

 476

 455

 447

 400

 388

 383

 386

 396

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 1, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 17,934

 18,258

 18,527

 18,705

 18,825

 18,937

 19,042

 19,140

 19,305

 19,452

 19,519

 19,527

 19,363

 19,182

 18,991

 18,811

 18,584

 18,384

 18,183

 18,072

 17,946

 17,838

 17,692

 17,525

 17,262

 16,964

 16,657

 16,353

 598

 609

 618

 624

 628

 631

 635

 638

 644

 648

 651

 651

 645

 639

 633

 627

 619

 613

 606

 602

 598

 595

 590

 584

 575

 565

 555

 545

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
FILED

March 12, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

SCOTT BALDWIN, J. L. SMITH, and )

KEVIN T. BROWN, individually and )

on behalf of a class of individuals )

similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9804-CV-00195

VS. )

) Davidson Circuit

PIRELLI ARMSTRONG TIRE ) No. 95C-3232

CORPORATION, UNITED RUBBER, )

CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC )

WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND )

URW LOCAL UNION 670, )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

ORDER ON PETITIONS TO REHEAR

Pirelli and the Union defendants have filed petitions to rehear. We have

decided that the petitions are without merit and should be denied.

It is, therefore, ordered that both petitions to rehear be denied.

______________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, PRESIDING JUDGE, M.S.

______________________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

______________________________________

WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE