alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 15, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15012 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 2 0 2 7 7 - C R - F AM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A N U E L S A L V A D O R H E RN A N D E Z - G O M E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 15, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M a nue l S a l va dorH e rna nde z - G om e z appe a l s a s unr e a s onabl e hi s s e nt e nc e of2

46 m on ths of i m pri sonm entfor i l l egal re entryi nt o the U ni t ed S t at es . T he advi sory gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 46- 57 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nta nd the s t a tut orym a xi m um w as t en ye ar s of i m pri sonm ent . H ernand ez -G om ez ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt e x p r e s s e d h is d is a g r e e m e n t w ith th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e a n dim p o s e da n u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . W e a f f irm .

“ R e vi e w f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s i s de f e r e nt i a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ [ T ] he pa rtyw ho c ha l l e nge s the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng thatthe se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e i n the l i gh tof bo th that r e c or d a nd the f

a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” I d. “ W he n w e r e vi e w as e nt e nc e f or r e a s o n ab le n e s s , w e d o n o t, a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id , d e te rm in e th e e x a c t s e n te n c e to be i m po se d. ” I d. “ W e m usteval uat e w hether the se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ct c o u rt f a ils to a c h ie v e th e p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g a s s ta te din s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .” I d .

“ [W ] hen the di stri ctcourti m po se s ase nt ence w i thi n the advi soryG ui del i nes r a n g e , w e o r d in a r ilyw ill e x p e c t th a t c h o ic e to b e ar e a s o n ab le o n e .” I d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t e rr . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyr e c o g n iz e dth a t its ge ne r a l di s a gr e e m e ntw i th the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s w a s notal e gi t i m a t e r e a s on t o va ryf r om the G ui de l i ne s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1366 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , pe t i t i on f orc e rt . f i l e d, N o. 06- 7352 ( U . S . O c t . 19, 2006) . T he di stri ctcourtconsi dere d the fa ct ors i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ) and se nt ence d H ernand ez -3

G om ez w el l bel ow the st atut ory m axi m um and atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i nes r a n g e . T h a t s e n te n c e is n o t u n r e a s o n ab le . H e rn a n d e z - G o m e z ’s s e n te n c e is A F F I R M E D .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7044

TAHRIM SUPREME C. JIHAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VAUGHN JACKSON; ANNIE ASKINS; DOCTOR BOULWARE;

LAURIE E. BESSINGER; THOMAS MCCANTS; WILLIAM

D. CATOE; in their individual and official

capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-97-3852-2-22AJ)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 2, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad appeals an order of the magistrate

judge denying Jihad’s motion for stay of proceedings and granting

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of a discovery order. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.4


                                               November 6, 2001



Sally von Bargen
Seattle, WA

RE: VESTING OF STOCK OPTIONS

Dear Sally:

This letter is to confirm the amendments to your various stock option award
agreements under the Getty Images, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan. Specifically,
this is to confirm that each of those agreements will be amended as follows:

        (a)     All options awarded under those agreements are fully vested and
                exercisable with effect from November 6, 2001, and

        (b)     You may exercise the options awarded under those agreements any
                time until the option expiration dates, as described in your
                option agreements, provided that no option shall be exercisable
                more than one year after your death.




<PAGE>

Sally Von Bargen
November 6, 2001
Page 2


For the avoidance of doubt, the status of your stock option grants is as
follows:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             OPTIONS           OPTIONS            VESTED &
GRANT DATE           SHARES             STRIKE PRICE        EXERCISED         ACCELERATED        EXERCISABLE
----------           ------             ------------        ---------         -----------        -----------
<S>                 <C>               <C>                  <C>               <C>                 <C>
11/1/94               8,167             $       0.18           8,167                  0                  0

2/9/98               65,000             $      20.91               0              4,062             65,000

4/9/99               70,000             $      23.32               0             26,250             70,000

10/22/99             15,000             $      19.07               0              7,500             15,000

10/22/99             25,000             $      19.07               0             12,250             25,000

3/30/01              20,000             $      16.85               0             20,000             20,000

TOTALS              203,167                                                      70,312            195,000
</TABLE>

All other terms of your stock option award agreements remain unchanged.

Please confirm that your agreement with the contents of this letter by signing
both originals and returning one original to me. You may keep one original for
your files.

Sincerely yours,



Jeffrey L. Beyle

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


---------------------------------
Sally von Bargen
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-MJ-8271/BER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEFFREY SPIVACK

Defendant

_____________________________/ 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO REOPEN DETENTION HEARING 

COMES NOW, Valentin Rodriguez, Esq., as counsel of record for, JEFFREY SPIVACK,

and hereby files the Defendant’s Motion to Reopen the Detention Hearing, and as grounds, states

the following:

1. On August 17 and 19, 2020, this Court conducted a detention hearing, and issued a

written order denying pre-trial release on August 20, 2020. [DE14].

2. In that Order, this Court was concerned that the $2.9 million allegedly taken from the

victim was “completely unaccounted for,” and thus Defendant was a flight risk

[DE14].

3. Since the date of this Order, the undersigned and other counsel have reviewed

extensive bank account records and can show this Court that the funds allegedly

taken from the victim are wholly accounted for, and that Defendant has no funds to

access, should he be released. Thus, there is new and additional information for this

Court to consider, in determining whether Defendant is a flight risk.

Case 9:20-mj-08271-BER Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

4. Defendant requests that he be released on house arrest with a personal surety bond

collateralized by real estate owned by this parents and brother.

5. Defendant has no criminal history.

6. CERTIFICATION: The undersigned has contacted AUSA Aurora Fagan, who is

requesting pretrial detention in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests that this Court conduct a detention hearing on

or about December 4, 2020, as discussed in Court on November 20, 2020.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished to all counsel

of record, on this 23 day of November, 2020, by filing with CM/ECF. rd

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Valentin Rodriguez

___________________________

VALENTIN RODRIGUEZ, ESQ.

Valentin Rodriguez, P.A.

2465 Mercer Avenue, Suite 301

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

(561) 832-7510 

defend@bellsouth.net

Fla Bar No. 047661

Counsel for Defendant Spivack

Case 9:20-mj-08271-BER Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### Dorothea Folser v. Samuel Brown et al., Impleaded with Others.

Present—Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.
§ 1312.5 Authority to classify. ( a ) The authority to originally classify information or material under this part shall be limited to those officials concerned with matters of national security. The officials listed in this section are granted authority by the Director, OMB, to assign original classifications as indicated to information or material that is originated by OMB staff and relating to the national security of the United States: ( 1 ) Top Secret and below: ( i ) Deputy Director.
( ii ) Deputy Director for Management.
( iii ) Associate Director for National Security and International Affairs.
( iv ) Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy and Science.
( 2 ) Secret and below: ( i ) Deputy Associate Director for National Security.
( ii ) Deputy Associate Director for International Affairs.
( iii ) Deputy Associate Director for Energy and Science.
( b ) Classification authority is not delegated to persons who only reproduce, extract, or summarize classified information, or who only apply classification markings derived from source material or from a classification guide.
#### § 12.127 Decision to store or dispose.

A shipment detained under § 12.122 will be considered to be unclaimed or abandoned and will be turned over to the Administrator for storage or disposition as provided for in § 127.28(i) of this chapter if the importer has not brought the shipment into compliance with TSCA and has not exported the shipment within the time limitations or extensions specified according to § 12.124. The importer will remain liable for any expense in the storage and/or disposal of abandoned merchandise.

[CBP Dec. 16-28, 81 FR 94986, Dec. 27, 2016]
Exhibit 23.2




                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEER



            As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the
            use of our name included herein or incorporated by reference
            in this Form 10-K by Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc.  and to
            the reference to our estimates of reserves and present value
            of future net reserves as of December 31, 1997, into
            Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc.'s previously filed
            Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-44449).





                                          /s/ Ryder Scott Company
                                              Petroleum Engineers

                                          Ryder Scott Company
                                          Petroleum Engineers

            Houston, Texas
            March 24, 1998
#### §§ 1850.152-1850.159 [Reserved]
### §1185d. Additional market reforms

#### (a) General rule

Except as provided in subsection (b)—

(1) the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq.] (as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall apply to group health plans, and health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans, as if included in this subpart; and

(2) to the extent that any provision of this part conflicts with a provision of such part A with respect to group health plans, or health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans, the provisions of such part A shall apply.

#### (b) Exception

Notwithstanding subsection (a), the provisions of sections 2716 and 2718 of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 300gg–16, 300gg–18] (as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall not apply with respect to self-insured group health plans, and the provisions of this part shall continue to apply to such plans as if such sections of the Public Health Service Act (as so amended) had not been enacted.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §715, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1563(e), formerly §1562(e), title X, §10107(b)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 270, 911.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Public Health Service Act, referred to in text, is act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, 58 Stat. 682. Part A of title XXVII of the Act is classified generally to part A (§300gg et seq.) of subchapter XXV of chapter 6A of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 201 of Title 42 and Tables.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 111–148, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 119. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 18001 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and Tables.

#### Codification

Pub. L. 111–148, which directed amendment of subpart B of part 7 of "subtitle A" of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by adding this section at the end, was executed by adding this section at the end of this subpart, which is subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title I of the Act, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24054]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-150562-03]
RIN 1545-BC67


Section 1045 Application to Partnerships; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that relates to partnership and their partners. The notice 
of public hearing under section 1045 of the Internal Revenue Code 
appeared in the Federal Register on Thursday, July 15, 2004, (69 FR 
42370). The change in date of the public hearing and extension of time 
to submit outlines of oral comments appeared in the Federal Register on 
Thursday, September 2, 2004, (69 FR 53664).

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for November 2, 2004, at 
10 a.m., changed to November 9, 2004, at 10 a.m., has been cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sonya M. Cruse of the Publications and 
Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel 
(Procedures and Administration), at (202) 622-4693 (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on Thursday, 
July 15, 2004, (69 FR 42370), announced that a public hearing was 
scheduled for November 2, 2004, at 10 a.m., in the auditorium, Internal 
Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 1045 of the 
Internal Revenue Code. However, a change in date of public hearing; 
extension of time to submit outlines of oral comments notice that 
appeared in the Federal Register on September 2, 2004, (69 FR 53664), 
announced that a public hearing was scheduled for November 9, 2004, at 
10 a.m., in the auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    The public comment period for these regulations expired on October 
19, 2004. The notice of proposed rulemaking instructed those interested 
in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an 
outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Friday, October 22, 2004, 
no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled 
for November 9, 2004, is cancelled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 
Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedures and Administration).
[FR Doc. 04-24054 Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities, Final Report, (NUREG/CR-6850, EPRI 1011989)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### Anna Jacobson v. Ignatz Jacobson (Max Brown, Appellant).

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
§ 1210.17 Hearings. ( a ) *Right to a hearing.* An appellant has a right to a hearing as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7701(a).
( b ) *General.* Hearings may be held in-person, by video or by telephone at the discretion of the administrative judge.
( c ) *Scheduling the hearing.* The administrative judge will set the hearing date during the initial status conference. A hearing generally will be scheduled to occur no later than 18 days after the appeal is filed.
( d ) *Length of hearings.* Hearings generally will be limited to no more than 1 day. The administrative judge, at his or her discretion, may allow for a longer hearing.
( e ) *Court reporters.* The MSPB will contract for a court reporter to be present at hearings.
#### Mary Sansiviero, an Infant, by Carmela Sansiviero, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. James Despierto et al., Respondents.

In our opinion a prima facie case was established that the box, so installed and maintained, constituted negligence and a nuisance. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
§ 1201.127 Judicial review. ( a ) An employee subject to a final Board decision imposing disciplinary action under 5 U.S.C. 1215 may obtain judicial review of the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section. 5 U.S.C. 1215(a)(4).
( b ) A party aggrieved by a determination or order of the Board under 5 U.S.C. 1505 (governing alleged violations of the Hatch Political Activities Act by State or local government employees) may obtain judicial review in an appropriate United States district court. 5 U.S.C. 1508.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23654]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel. Member Conflict Meeting.
    Date: November 17, 2004.
    Time: 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes 
Street, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Mark Swieter, PhD, Health Scientist 
Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on 
Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6101 Executive 
Boulevard, Suite 220, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, (301) 435-1389.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug 
Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist 
Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug 
Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 
93.279, Drug Abuse Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)

    Dated: October 14, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-23654 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 1631.43 Enforcement.

Upon the failure of any party to comply with a subpoena, the General Counsel shall request that the Attorney General seek enforcement of the subpoena in the appropriate United States district court.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00192

- CV
Magdalena Ruiz Perkild

v. Erika Salazar

On a ppeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2019

- DCL

- 01858

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 6, 2019
#### The City of New York, Respondent, v. Bleecker Street and Fulton Ferry Railroad Company and Another, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §277. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–191, §13, Dec. 18, 1973, 87 Stat. 746

Section, act Feb. 24, 1919, ch. 18, title XIII, §1303(d), as added June 2, 1924, ch. 234, title XI, §1101, 43 Stat. 353, provided for free transmission of official mail matter of legislative counsel. Official mail matter of Legislative Counsel of House of Representatives is covered by section 282d of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Dec. 18, 1973, see section 14 of Pub. L. 93–191, set out as an Effective Date of 1973 Amendment note under section 3210 of Title 39, Postal Service.