alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo TELLO-BERNAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50419.

D.C. No. CR-00-00284-JTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 24, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rodolfo Tello-Bernal appeals his guilty plea conviction and 46-month sentence for one count of importation of cocaine and one count of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952, 960 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Tello-Bernal contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952 and 960 are unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and *United States v. Nordby,*225 F.3d 1053, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2000), *over*
      *633
      *ruled in part by United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 2002 WL 857751, at *6 (9th Cir. May 7, 2002) (en banc) (overruling Nordby’s conclusion that Congress committed drug quantity to the sentencing judge to decide by a preponderance of the evidence). This contention is foreclosed by our decisions in *Buckland,*at *2-6, ---(concluding that § 841 is not facially unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi), United States v. Varela-Rivera,*279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that *Buckland*also precludes a challenge to the constitutionality of § 952), and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that *Apprendi*does not render § 960 facially unconstitutional).

Moreover, Tello-Bernal’s 46-month sentence is well below the 20-year statutory maximum for possession of any measurable amount of cocaine with intent to distribute. *See*§ 841(b)(1)(C); *United States v. Romero,*282 F.3d 683, 690 (9th Cir. 2002). Where a defendant’s actual sentence falls below the statutory maximum for the offense to which he pleaded guilty, he is not prejudiced for purposes of *Apprendi See United States v. Scheele,*231 F.3d 492, 497 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, any sentencing error under *Apprendi*was harmless. *See United States v. Garcia-Guizar,*234 F.3d 483, 488-89 (9th Cir.2000), *cert. denied,*532 U.S. 984, 121 S.Ct. 1629, 149 L.Ed.2d 490 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-02-007 March 5, 2002

CONTACT: Breck Henderson E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128 Cellular: 817-917-1227

NRC APPOINTS ALFRED SANCHEZ RESIDENT INSPECTOR 

AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has appointed Alfred Sanchez resident inspector at

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, a nuclear power plant near Glen Rose, Texas. He joins senior

resident inspector Don Allen.

Mr. Sanchez earned a bachelorís degree in nuclear engineering in 1993 at Texas A&M

University and a masterís degree in industrial engineering in 1999, also from Texas A&M.

Mr. Sanchez joined the NRC in April 2000 as an operations engineer. Prior to joining the

NRC, he worked as a senior operator at the Texas A&M Nuclear Science Centerís TRIGA research

reactor. Mr. Sanchez and his family reside in Fort Worth, Texas.

###
§ 1605.21 Plan-paid breakage and other corrections. ( a ) *Plan-paid breakage.* ( 1 ) Subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if, because of an error committed by the Board or the TSP record keeper, a participant's account is not credited or charged with the investment gains or losses the account would have received had the error not occurred, the account will be credited accordingly.
( 2 ) Errors that warrant the crediting of breakage under paragraph (a)(1) of this section include, but are not limited to: ( i ) Delay in crediting contributions or other money to a participant's account;
( ii ) Improper issuance of a loan or TSP withdrawal payment to a participant or beneficiary which requires the money to be restored to the participant's account; and
( iii ) Investment of all or part of a participant's account in the wrong investment fund(s).
( 3 ) A participant will not be entitled to breakage under paragraph (a)(1) of this section if the participant had the use of the money on which the investment gains would have accrued.
( 4 ) If the participant continued to have a TSP account, or would have continued to have a TSP account but for the Board or TSP record keeper's error, the TSP record keeper will compute gains or losses under paragraph (a)(1) of this section for the relevant period based upon the investment funds in which the affected money would have been invested had the error not occurred. If the participant did not have, and should not have had, a TSP account during this period, then the TSP will use the rate of return set forth in § 1605.2(b) for the relevant period and return the money to the participant.
( b ) *Other corrections.* The Executive Director may, in his or her discretion and consistent with the requirements of applicable law, correct any other errors not specifically addressed in this section, including payment of breakage, if the Executive Director determines that the correction would serve the interests of justice and fairness and equity among all participants of the TSP.
[87 FR 31678, May 24, 2022]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1998
<CASH>                                          12,958
<SECURITIES>                                     2,502
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     47,246
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,903
<PP&E>                                         101,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,311
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           503
<OTHER-SE>                                     156,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,265
<SALES>                                        206,293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               206,293
<CGS>                                           86,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,033
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,292
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.53
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Stan Cipkowski, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of American Bio Medica
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) [omitted]; and

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and


/s/ Stan Cipkowski
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 12, 2005

                                       18
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6670
TAHRIM SUPREME C. JIHAD, a/k/a Vincent Edward Little, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM E. GUNN; RAYMOND J. ROSSI; RHETT JACKSON, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-95-3596-2-22AJ) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad, Appellant Pro Se. Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant'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 advisedAppellant 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, Appellant 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 warnedthat failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review byfailing 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
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-04-0035 - Results of the License Termination Rule Analysis of the Use of Intentional Mixing of Contaminated Soil

Accession Number: ML040060667

Date Released: Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML040120729 - SECY-04-0035 - RESULTS OF THE LICENSE TERMINATION RULE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF INTENTIONAL MIXING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL (7 page(s), 3/1/2004)
    - ML040120760 - SECY-04-0035 - Attachment 1: NRC STAFF OPTIONS ANALYSIS FOR APPROPRIATENESS OF ALLOWING INTENTIONAL MIXING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL UNDER THE LICENSE TERMINATION RULE (17 page(s), 3/1/2004)
    - ML040120774 - SECY-04-0035 - ATTACHMENT 2:  EXPERIENCE AND INFORMATION, RELEVANT ISSUES, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORTING THE STAFF OPTIONS ANALYSIS FOR APPROPRIATENESS OF ALLOWING INTENTIONAL MIXING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL UNDER THE LICENSE TERMINATION RULE (54 page(s), 3/1/2004)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
OFFICER'S STATEMENT

Harry Puglisi, Treasurer of The Money Store Investment Corporation

(the "Servicer"), in accordance with Section 7.04 of the Pooling and Servicing

Agreement ("Agreement") dated as of August 31, 1997 wherein The Money Store

Investment Corporation, is the "Servicer" states the following:

(i)    the Servicer has fully complied with articles V and VII;

(ii)   a review of the activities of the Servicer during 1997 and of its
       performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;

(iii)  to the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Servicer has
       fulfilled all its oblications under the Agreement throughout 1997 and
       there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.



THE MONEY STORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


BY: /s/ HARRY PUGLISI
    Harry Puglisi
    Treasurer
<PAGE>
                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT



The Board of Directors
The Money Store Inc.:

We have examined Management's Assertion about The Money Store Inc. and
subsidiaries (the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards
relating to mortgage loans, commercial loans and auto loans, identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers (USAP), except for minimum servicing standard V. 4 which is
inapplicable to the servicing of auto loans, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1997 included in the accompanying Management Assertion. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Management's Assertion
about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, Management's Assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.






February 11, 1998
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.24 

                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                        
     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is made
effective this 15th day of September, 1998, by and between CONVERGENT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Colorado corporation ("Employer" or the "Company") and
MARTIN E. FREIDEL ("Employee").

     A.  The Parties have entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated
August 7, 1997 ("Agreement");

     B.  The Parties desire to amend and modify certain of the terms and
conditions of the Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants
contained herein and in the Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

     1.  Compensation and Benefits.
         ------------------------- 

     1.1  Section 3.1 of the Agreement shall be amended to increase Employee's
annual base salary to One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000.00).

     1.2  Section 3.2 of the Agreement shall be amended to change Employee's
target bonus to Seventy-Five Percent (75%), commencing with the 1999 fiscal year
and thereafter.  The parties agree that Employee's target bonus shall remain One
Hundred Percent (100%) for the 1998 fiscal year and shall be computed as a
percentage of Employee's annual base salary in effect immediately prior to the
date of this Amendment.

     2.  Other Terms and Conditions.  All other terms and conditions of the
         --------------------------                                        
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, as if fully stated herein.

     3.  Capitalized Terms.  Capitalized terms, and other defined terms, shall
         -----------------                                                    
have the same meaning as that accorded to them in the Agreement, unless the
context requires otherwise.

     4.  Conflict.  If there are any conflicting terms or conditions between the
         --------                                                               
terms and conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions of the
Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment to
be executed by its duly authorized representative on the day and year first
above written.

CONVERGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,           MARTIN E. FREIDEL
a Colorado corporation



<PAGE>
 
By  /s/ John R. Evans                      /s/ Martin E. Freidel
  ______________________________________   ___________________________________
  John R. Evans, Chief Executive Officer

                                       2
§ 2412.7 Initial decision on access requests. ( a ) Within ten (10) working days of the receipt of a request pursuant to § 2412.5, the FLRA's Solicitor or IG will make an initial decision regarding whether the requested records exist and whether they will be made available to the requester. The Solicitor or IG will promptly communicate that initial decision to you in writing or other appropriate form.
( b ) When the initial decision is to provide access to the requested records, the writing or other appropriate communication notifying you of the decision will: ( 1 ) Briefly describe the records to be made available;
( 2 ) State whether any records maintained about you in the system of records in question are not being made available;
( 3 ) State whether any further verification of your identity is necessary; and
( 4 ) Notify you of any fee charged under § 2412.13.
( 5 ) The Solicitor or IG will promptly disclose the requested records to you upon payment of any applicable fee under § 2412.13.
( c ) When the initial decision is not to provide access to requested records and accountings, the Solicitor or IG will, by writing or other appropriate communication, explain the reason for that decision. The Solicitor or IG will only refuse to provide you access when: ( 1 ) Your verification of identity is inadequate under § 2412.5(d);
( 2 ) No such records are maintained or an exemption applies;
( 3 ) Your information is contained in, and inseparable from, another individual's record;
( 4 ) The requested records have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of civil or criminal action or other proceedings.
### §525. Future location of claims on mineral lands

Subject to the conditions and provisions of this chapter, mining claims and millsites may hereafter be located under the mining laws of the United States on lands of the United States which at the time of location are—

(a) included in a permit or lease issued under the mineral leasing laws; or

(b) covered by an application or offer for a permit or lease filed under the mineral leasing laws; or

(c) known to be valuable for minerals subject to disposition under the mineral leasing laws;

to the same extent in all respects as if such lands were not so included or covered or known.

(Aug. 13, 1954, ch. 730, §5, 68 Stat. 710.)
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington TX 76011-4005

No. IV-03-009 March 21, 2003

CONTACT: Victor Dricks E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128 

NRC TO MEET WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TO DISCUSS

 PERFORMANCE OF SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

 

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of the Southern

California Edison Company on Thursday, April 3, to discuss the results of the agency’s annual

assessment of safety performance at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The facility, which

includes two operating reactors, is located near San Clemente, Calif., and is operated by SCE.

 The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 7:00 

p.m. at the Country Inn San Clemente, 35 Via Pico Plaza, San Clemente.

Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the

public on the safety performance of the plant, as well as the role of the NRC in ensuring safe plant

operation.

 The performance period to be discussed is January 1 to December 31, 2002. In addition, NRC

staff will provide an overview of how the agency’s Reactor Oversight Process works.

 A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office to representatives of SCE addresses the

performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is

available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/sano_2002q4.pdf

“Overall, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station operated in a manner that preserved public

health and safety and fully met all cornerstone objectives,” the letter says. However, because the

number of automatic reactor shutdowns at Unit 2 exceeded a threshold during the first quarter of 2003,

NRC will schedule and conduct a supplemental inspection there, in addition to the baseline inspections

at the site.

In addition, the letter notes: “As you are aware, since the terrorist attacks on September 11,

2001, the NRC has issued several Orders and threat advisories to enhance security capabilities and

improve guard force readiness. We have conducted inspections to review your implementation of

these requirements and have monitored your actions in response to changing threat conditions. For

calendar year 2003, we plan to continue these inspections and conduct portions of the security baseline

inspection program, as well as perform additional inspections to evaluate your compliance with new

requirements that may be ordered.”
Current performance information for San Onofre Unit 2 is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SANO2/sano2_chart.html

Performance information for Unit 3 is available at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SANO3/sano3_chart.html

###