alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO CENTRAL APPRAISAL

DISTRICT,

Appellant,

V.

PLACITAS DE ZARAGOSA GROUP,

LLC N/K/A PLACITAS DE

ZARAGOSA GROUP ASSOCIATION,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00164

- CV

Appeal from the

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2014DTX0839)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
### §11115. Joint funding; non-Federal share requirements

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, where funds are made available by more than one Federal agency to be used by any agency, organization, institution, or individual to carry out a Federal juvenile delinquency program or activity, any one of the Federal agencies providing funds may be requested by the Administrator to act for all in administering the funds advanced whenever the Administrator finds the program or activity to be exceptionally effective or for which the Administrator finds exceptional need. In such cases, a single non-Federal share requirement may be established according to the proportion of funds advanced by each Federal agency, and the Administrator may order any such agency to waive any technical grant or contract requirement (as defined in such regulations) which is inconsistent with the similar requirement of the administering agency or which the administering agency does not impose.

(Pub. L. 93–415, title II, §205, Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1116; Pub. L. 95–115, §3(c), Oct. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 1049; Pub. L. 96–509, §19(e), Dec. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 2763.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 5615 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–509 struck out "Associate" before "Administrator finds" in two places.

1977—Pub. L. 95–115 inserted provisions relating to functions of the Associate Administrator with respect to joint funding.

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

#### Effective Date of 1977 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–115 effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 263(c) of Pub. L. 93–415, as added by Pub. L. 95–115 and repealed by Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7266(2), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4449, formerly set out as a note under section 11101 of this title.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JAMES COURY HOLMES , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:00

- cr - 00107

- HMH

- 1 )

Submitted : September 20, 2021 Decided: October 1, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON , and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James Coury Holmes , Appellant Pro Se. Winston Irwin Marosek , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Coury Holmes appeals the district court ’ s order granting, in part, his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review a district court ’ s order granting or denyi ng a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021 ), petition for cert. docketed , No. 21

- 4624 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not
abuse it s discretion. The court granted Holmes’ motion , reducing his sentence from 1057 months’ imprisonment to 530 months, after discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explain ing the reasons for its decision

. See United States v. McCoy , 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020 ). We therefore affirm the district court ’ s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
#### § 250.301 Definitions.

*Agency* means an Executive agency, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105.
### §60306. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) Authorization for grants

There are authorized to be appropriated 1

(1) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2017;

(2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2018;

(3) $12,500,000 for fiscal year 2019;

(4) $17,500,000 for fiscal year 2020; and

(5) $22,500,000 for fiscal year 2021.2

to carry out this chapter.

#### (b) Restriction on use of funds to ensure equal allocation

Each State receiving a grant under this chapter shall allocate the funds equally between the uses described in section 60301 of this title and the uses described in section 60302 of this title, except as provided in section 60305(f) of this title, or upon a showing of good cause, and at the discretion of the Attorney General, the State may determine a fair allocation of funds across the uses described in sections 60301 and 60302 of this title.

(Pub. L. 108–405, title IV, §426, Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2292; Pub. L. 114–324, §10, Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1956.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14163e of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section. Some section numbers or references in amendment notes below reflect the classification of such sections or references prior to editorial reclassification.

#### Amendments

2016—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–324, §10(1), which directed substitution of pars. (1) to (5) for "$75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009", was executed by making the substitution and setting out the remaining phrase "to carry out this part.", which was not directed to be struck out, as concluding provisions.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–324, §10(2), inserted before period at end ", or upon a showing of good cause, and at the discretion of the Attorney General, the State may determine a fair allocation of funds across the uses described in sections 14163 and 14163a of this title".

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a dash.

2 So in original.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 11417 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JESSE GUZMAN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07

- CR

- 35

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesse Guzman, federal prisoner # 01991

- 051, appeals the denial of his motion for modification of his restitution order and payment plan under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). The district court gave no reasons for its decision. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part. To the extent Guzman’s motion may be liberally construed as a challenge to the district court’s existing restitution order, rather than as a challenge to

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 15, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-11417 Document: 00512631424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2014No. 13

- 11417

t he payment plan created by the Bureau of Prisons under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), Guzman properly invoke d § 3664(k). See United States v. Diggs , 578 F.3d 318, 319

- 20 (5th Cir. 2009). But his cryptic assertions provide no discernible basis for relief. T he judgment is AFFIRMED IN PART as it pertains to any claims concerning the district court’s existing restitution order under § 3664(k)

. I n all other respects, Guzman seeks modification of the IFRP plan

. H e must seek this relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 i n the district of incarceration after exhausting all admin istrative remedies. See Diggs , 578 F.3d at 319

- 20. Guzman sought relief in the correct district. But the district court did not consider his request under § 2241

. Moreover , there is no evidence concerning exhaustion, and the Government has not had an opportunity to address Guzman’s request

. We therefore VACATE AND REMAND IN PART so that the district court can consider Guzman’s request under § 2241 and determine whether he has exhausted his administrative remedies. The judgment is AFFIRMED IN PART and VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

2 Case: 13-11417 Document: 00512631424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2014
§ 430.102 Performance management. ( a ) Performance management is the systematic process by which an agency involves its employees, as individuals and members of a group, in improving organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of agency mission and goals.
( b ) Performance management integrates the processes an agency uses to— ( 1 ) Communicate and clarify organizational goals to employees;
( 2 ) Identify individual and, where applicable, team accountability for accomplishing organizational goals;
( 3 ) Identify and address developmental needs for individuals and, where applicable, teams;
( 4 ) Assess and improve individual, team, and organizational performance;
( 5 ) Use appropriate measures of performance as the basis for recognizing and rewarding accomplishments; and
( 6 ) Use the results of performance appraisal as a basis for appropriate personnel actions.
§ 733.103 Permitted political activities—employees who reside in designated localities. ( a ) This section does not apply to an individual who is employed in an agency or position described in § 733.105(a), unless that individual has been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
( b ) Employees who reside in a municipality or political subdivision designated by OPM under § 733.107 may: ( 1 ) Run as independent candidates for election to partisan political office in elections for local office in the municipality or political subdivision;
( 2 ) Solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution as, or on behalf of, an independent candidate for partisan political office in elections for local office in the municipality or political subdivision;
( 3 ) Accept or receive a political contribution on behalf of an individual who is a candidate for local partisan political office and who represents a political party;
( 4 ) Solicit, accept, or receive uncompensated volunteer services as an independent candidate, or on behalf of an independent candidate, for local partisan political office, in connection with the local elections of the municipality or subdivision; and
( 5 ) Solicit, accept, or receive uncompensated volunteer services on behalf of an individual who is a candidate for local partisan political office and who represents a political party.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sam Spitzer, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — ’Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1666 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1666

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that discontinuance 
of veterans' disability compensation upon the death of a veteran shall 
  be effective as of the date of death of the veteran rather than the 
          last day of the month preceding the veteran's death.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2003

   Mr. Boyd introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that discontinuance 
of veterans' disability compensation upon the death of a veteran shall 
  be effective as of the date of death of the veteran rather than the 
          last day of the month preceding the veteran's death.

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

SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF VETERANS' DISABILITY 
              COMPENSATION.

    (a) Prorating of Benefits for Month of Death.--Section 5112 (b)(1) 
of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the 
semicolon the following: ``, except that in the case of discontinuation 
of compensation by reason of death of the payee, such effective date 
shall be the day before such death occurs''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment for Commencment of DIC.--Section 
5110(d)(1) of such title is amended by striking ``first day of the 
month in which the death occurred'' and inserting ``date of death''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.48

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

         This Termination Agreement (this "Agreement") is signed 27 November,
2003 between the following two parties.

PARTY A:          Shanghai Huitong Information Co., Ltd.
ADDRESS:          No.28, Jiaji Road, Jiading District, Shanghai

PARTY B:          Hu Ankai
ADDRESS:          No.22, Lane 1416, Zhonghua Road, Shanghai

         1 WHEREAS, Party A and Party B signed the loan agreement (the "Loan
Agreement") in January 16th, 2002.

         2 WHEREAS, Party A and Party B intent to terminate the Loan Agreement.

         NOW THEREFORE, both parties agree as follows:

1.       Party A and Party B agree to terminate the Loan Agreement and the Loan
         Agreement shall terminate automatically upon this Agreement coming into
         effect.

2.       Rights and obligations of Party A and Party B under the Loan Agreement
         shall terminate upon the termination of the Loan Agreement.

3.       This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution.

4.       This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of People's Republic of
         China.

5.       This Agreement is executed by Chinese and English in duplicate, and in
         case of confliction, the Chinese version shall prevail.

PARTY A: SHANGHAI HUITONG INFORMATION CO., LTD.

Representative: /s/ Jun Wu

PARTY B: /s/ Hu Ankai

                                       1
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-20725

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

FRANK ATUAHENE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ARCHER, WALDNER & VICKERY, L.L.P. and

LAURIE PLEASANT, Individually,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-3989)

______________________________________________________

December 29, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this appeal, Atuahene challenges the district court's

dismissal on summary judgment of his legal malpractice action

against former counsel. Atuahene engaged the appellee law firm to

represent him in pursuing a medical malpractice claim against a

dentist. In the underlying malpractice action, counsel filed suit

and conducted discovery. Atuahene's action against the dentist was

settled for $25,000 and Atuahene consented to the settlement and
2

accepted his share of the settlement funds. Summary judgment

evidence also established that at the time Atuahene approved the

settlement he was aware of the allegedly negligent acts of his

attorney.

Under these circumstances, we agree with the district court's

conclusion that under Texas law where a plaintiff agrees to a

settlement with the knowledge of the allegedly negligent acts of

his lawyer, the decision to settle severs the causal link between

the lawyer's conduct and the settlement terms. See Campbell v.

Wiltshire, 1996 WL 400110 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 18,

1996, writ denied).

Appellant raises a number of new issues for the first time on

appeal, which we decline to consider.

Because the district court correctly granted summary judgment,

its judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
# L_2019099EN.01004701.xml

| 10.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 99/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 99/47

---

Corrigendum to Agreement establishing the EU-LAC International Foundation

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 288 of 22 October 2016
  )

The publication of Agreement establishing the EU-LAC International Foundation is to be considered null and void.

---
***Exhibit 32***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

In connection with the reporton Form 10-Q of Allied Resources, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Ruairidh Campbell, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)  This report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in thisreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results ofoperations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: November 15, 2010

 

 

/s/ Ruairidh Campbell

Ruairidh Campbell

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and willbe retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 151.65 Duties.

Duties on wool or hair subject to duty at a rate per clean kilogram may be estimated at the time of filing the entry summary on the basis of the clean yield shown on the entry summary if the Center director is satisfied that the revenue will be properly protected. Liquidated duties shall be based upon the Center director's final determination of clean yield. Estimated and liquidated duties on wool or hair tested for clean yield pursuant to the provisions of § 151.71, and withdrawn for consumption without a change in condition which affects the duties and in a quantity less than an entire sampling unit shall be determined on the basis of an appropriate adjustment of the estimated percentage clean yield shown on the entry summary for the wool or hair included in each of the lots covered by the withdrawal. This adjustment shall be made by increasing or decreasing such estimated percentage clean yield of each lot by the difference between the percentage clean yield of the related sampling unit, as determined by the Center director, and the weighted average percentage clean yield for the sampling unit, as computed from the estimated percentages clean yield and net weights shown on the entry summary for the lots included in the sampling unit.

[T.D. 73-175, 38 FR 17470, July 2, 1973, as amended by T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46829, Aug. 9, 1979; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51269, Dec. 21, 1988]
### §121. Repealed. Oct. 11, 1951, ch. 495, §5, 65 Stat. 407

Section, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 328, related to additional precautions.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 1954, see note set out under sections 61 to 63 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 315
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 315 appear at 70 FR 72067, Dec. 1, 2005.

§ 315.602 Appointment based on service in the Office of the President or Vice-President or on the White House Staff. ( a ) *Agency authority.* An agency may appoint noncompetitively a person who has served at least 2 years in the immediate Office of the President or Vice-President or on the White House Staff, provided that the appointment is effected without a break in service of 1 full workday.
( b ) *Tenure on appointment.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a person appointed under paragraph (a) of this section becomes a career-conditional employee.
( 2 ) A person appointed under paragraph (a) of this section becomes a career employee when he or she has completed the service requirement for career tenure or is excepted from it by § 315.201(c).
( c ) *Acquisition of competitive status.* A person appointed under paragraph (a) of this section acquires a competitive status automatically on appointment.
[44 FR 54692, Sept. 21, 1979]
§ 550.714 Panama Canal Commission employees. ( a ) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subpart, an employee separated from employment with the Panama Canal Commission as a result of the implementation of any provision of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements shall not be entitled to severance pay if he or she— ( 1 ) Receives a written offer of reasonably comparable employment when such offer is made before separation from Commission employment;
( 2 ) Accepts reasonably comparable employment within 30 days after separation from Commission employment; or
( 3 ) Was hired by the Commission on or after December 18, 1997.
( b ) The term *reasonably comparable employment* means a position that meets all the following conditions: ( 1 ) The position is with the Panamanian public entity that assumes the functions of managing, operating, and maintaining the Panama Canal as a result of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977;
( 2 ) The rate of basic pay of the position is not more than 10 percent below the employee's rate of basic pay as a Panama Canal Commission employee;
( 3 ) The position is within the employee's commuting area;
( 4 ) The position carries no fixed time limitation as to length of appointment; and
( 5 ) The work schedule (that is, part-time or full-time) of the position is the same as that of the position held by the employee at the Panama Canal Commission.
( c ) A Panama Canal Commission employee who resigns prior to receiving an official written notice that he or she will not be offered reasonably comparable employment shall be considered to be voluntarily separated. Section 550.706(a) shall be applied, as appropriate, to any employee who resigns after receiving such notice.
( d ) Except as otherwise provided by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, the provisions of this subpart remain applicable to Panama Canal Commission employees.
[62 FR 49127, Sept. 19, 1997]