alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 3/25/15 P. v. Villalobos CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
ROBERT DAVID VILLALOBOS,
Defendant and Appellant. B258317
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA098987)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Los Angeles County, Arthur Jean, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________ __________2 After she was awakened by some noi ses around 2:30 a.m., Monica Vasquez
discovered Robert David Villalobos inside th e garage of her family home. Villalobos was arrested and charged with first degree burglary with a person present (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21)) with a special allegation he had served three prior prison
terms for felonies within th e meaning of Penal Code sect ion 667.5, subdivision (b).
Villalobos was convicted of burglary as charged. In a bifurcated proceeding Villalobos admitted the special allegation. The trial court sentenced Villalobos to the upper term of six years in st ate prison and dismissed the prio r prison term enhancements. We appointed counsel to represent Villal obos on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an openin g brief in which no issues we re raised. On December 8, 2014 we advised Villalobos he had 30 days within which to pe rsonally submit any
contentions or issues he wished us to c onsider. We have received no response.
We have examined the record and are sa tisfied Villalobos’s appellate attorney has fully complied with the res ponsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. ( Smith v.
Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [1 20 S.Ct. 746, 14 5 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.
We concur:

ZELON, J. IWASAKI, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of th e California Constitution.
NRC SCHEDULES MEETING JAN. 26 TO DISCUSS

INSPECTION AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting at the Browns 

Ferry nuclear power plant to discuss the results of the second phase of NRC supplemental 

inspections performed as a result of a “red” inspection finding at the plant. 

The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 26, at 1 p.m. CST at the Browns Ferry

Training Center Auditorium, 10833 Shaw Road in Athens, Ala. The meeting will include

members of the NRC supplemental inspection team as well as managers from the NRC’s Region 

II office in Atlanta. After the results are presented, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which 

operates the plant, will have an opportunity to respond. NRC staff will be available to answer 

questions from the public.

Members of the public interested in participating by telephone should contact the NRC's 

Eugene Guthrie at 404-997-4662 or eugene.guthrie@nrc.gov . 

The “red” finding was issued because of the failure of a low pressure coolant injection 

valve at the plant last fall. That valve is part of a system that would be used for core cooling 

during certain accident scenarios and its inoperable state could have led to core damage had a 

series of unlikely events occurred. The valve has since been repaired. Under the NRC’s oversight 

process, a “red” finding has “high safety significance” and results in increased NRC inspection 

and oversight of the facility.

The increased NRC oversight at Browns Ferry includes a broad set of supplemental 

inspections to evaluate safety, organizational and programmatic issues at the plant. This meeting 

discusses the second phase of the three-phase supplemental inspection. The third phase is 

expected to begin later this year.

The inspections include a more extensive review of programs and processes than those 

conducted as part of the NRC’s baseline inspection program. The facility’s safety culture is also 

being assessed.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No: II-12-001

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

 

 January 17, 2012

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
The three-unit Browns Ferry plant is located near Athens, about 32 miles west of 

Huntsville. 

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
#### § 971.805 Computation of time.

Except where otherwise specified, Saturdays, Sundays and Federal Government holidays will be included in computing the time period allowed for filing any document or paper under this part or 15 CFR part 970, but when a time period expires on any of these days, that time period will be extended to include the next following Federal Government work day. Filing periods expire at the close of business on the day specified, for the office specified.
#### § 1000.13 Directives System.

The Commission maintains a Directives System which contains delegations of authority and descriptions of Commission programs, policies, and procedures. A complete set of directives is available for inspection in the public reading room at Commission headquarters.
### **CHAPTER 13—SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS**

Sec.
1751.
Congressional declaration of policy.
1752.
Authorization of appropriations; "Secretary" defined.
1753.
Apportionments to States.
1754.
Nutrition promotion.
1755.
Direct expenditures for agricultural commodities and other foods.
1755a.
Whole grain products.
1755b.
Pulse crop products.
1756.
Payments to States.
1757.
State disbursement to schools.
1758.
Program requirements.
1758a.
State performance on enrolling children receiving program benefits for free school meals.
1758b.
Local school wellness policy.
1759.
Direct disbursement to schools by Secretary.
1759a.
Special assistance funds.
1760.
Miscellaneous provisions.
1761.
Summer food service program for children.
1762.
Summer electronic benefits transfer for children program.
1762a.
Commodity distribution program.
1763, 1764. Repealed.
1765.
Election to receive cash payments.
1766.
Child and adult care food program.
1766a.
Meal supplements for children in afterschool care.
1766b to 1768. Repealed.
1769.
Pilot projects.
1769a.
Fresh fruit and vegetable program.
1769b.
Department of Defense overseas dependents' schools.
1769b–1.
Training, technical assistance, and food service management institute.
1769c.
Compliance and accountability.
1769d.
Childhood hunger research.
1769e.
State childhood hunger challenge grants.
1769f.
Duties of Secretary relating to nonprocurement debarment.
1769g.
Information clearinghouse.
1769h.
Repealed.
1769i.
Program evaluation.
1769j.
Ensuring safety of school meals.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

EX PARTE §

§

§ NO. WR-83,100-01

§ WR-83,100-02

LUIS ANGEL MONDRAGON § WR-83,100-03

APPLICANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND DISMISS

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT

TO ART. 11.07, TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

NOW COMES the Applicant, LUIS ANGEL MONDRAGON, and files this Motion

to Withdraw and Dismiss Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Art. 11.07, Tex

Code Crim. Proc., and would show the following:

I.

Applicant hereby moves to withdraw and dismiss his Application for Writ of Habeas

Corpus.

II.

Applicant filed a motion in the trial court prior to his writ application being forwarded

to this Court asking that his Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed. That

motion was granted on March 30, 2015. A copy of the order of the trial court is attached as

Exhibit A.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that this motion be

granted.

Applicant’s Motion to Withdraw and Dismiss Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Art. 11.07, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. - Page 1

WR-83,100-03

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/13/2015 9:37:42 AM

Accepted 4/13/2015 9:56:07 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Robert N. Udashen 

ROBERT N. UDASHEN, P.C.

Bar Card No. 20369600

SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON

2311 Cedar Springs Road

Suite 250

Dallas, Texas 75201

214-468-8100

214-468-8104 (fax)

Attorney for Applicant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On this 13th day of April, 2015, a true and correct copy of Applicant’s Motion to

Withdraw Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Art. 11.07, Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. was delivered to the Dallas CountyDistrict Attorney’s Office, Appellate Section, Frank

Crowley Courts Building, 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., L.B. 19, Dallas, Texas 75207.

 /s/ Robert N. Udashen 

ROBERT N. UDASHEN, P.C.

Applicant’s Motion to Withdraw and Dismiss Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Art. 11.07, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. - Page 2
WRIT NOS. W01-59633-L(A), W01-49257-L(A), W03-49258-L(A) 

INDICTMENT NOS. FOi-59633-L, F03-49257-L, F03-49258-L 

STATE OF TEXAS 

vs. 

LUIS ANGEL MONDRAGON 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT 

COURT NUMBER FIVE 

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 

ORDER 

On this day came on to be considered the motion of Luis Angel Mondragon to 

withdraw and dismiss his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court, after 

considering same, is of the opinion said motion should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE 

ORDERED that the applications for writs of habeas corpus filed by Luis Angel Mondragon 

in cause numbers W01-59633-L(A), W01-49257-L(A), and W03-49258-L(A) are hereby 

DISMISSED. ) 

SIGNED this 0 dayof ___ ~Y\-~#_"_.....-_- __ ~ ______ , 2015. 

c 

JUDGE PRESIDING 

EXHIBIT 

Applicant's Order to Withdraw and Dismiss Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus - Page 1 14
### §2604. Delivery of stolen money to owner

When the Postal Service is satisfied that money or property in the possession of the Postal Service represents money or property stolen from the mails, or the proceeds thereof, it may deliver it to the person it finds to be the rightful owner.

(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 745.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 71–9 of the Board of Governors. See section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91–375, set out as a note preceding section 101 of this title.
No. III-10-037

Contacts: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

 December 7, 2010

 E-Mail: opa3@nrc.gov 

Web site: www.nrc.gov

NRC SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS

HUMAN PERFORMANCE AT PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public meeting in Red Wing, Minn., on 

Dec. 14 to discuss the effectiveness of efforts at the Prairie Island Nuclear Plant to resolve human 

performance problems. The plant is located in Welch, Minn., roughly 50 miles southeast of Minneapolis, 

and operated by Northern State Power - Minnesota (NSPM).

The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. in the Red Wing Public Library, 225 East Avenue. The 

meeting is open to the public and the NRC staff will be available to answer questions after the business 

portion of the meeting.

Human performance concerns at Prairie Island constitute a “cross-cutting issue,” which means it 

“cuts across” multiple areas of plant operation. These issues tend to involve behaviors, such as the plant 

staff’s ability to effectively develop and follow procedures. These behaviors do not constitute violations 

of NRC requirements. However, they can be major contributing factors to safety-significant findings. 

When a cross-cutting issue is identified, the NRC expects the problem to be corrected.

The NRC first identified a cross-cutting issue in the area of human performance at Prairie Island 

in mid-2009. The NRC subsequently documented this issue in its annual plant assessment for 2009 and 

the 2010 mid-year assessment letter. In addition, the NRC held a public meeting in Dec. 2009 to gain a 

better understanding of how the company planned to address human performance issues. 

The purpose of the Dec. 14 meeting is to have the company provide the agency and the public 

with an update on what has been done to address human performance; what improvements had been 

made; and what remains to be done to resolve these concerns.

The human performance issue will remain open until the number of findings that have human 

performance as a major causal factor declines and the NRC has confidence this improvement can be 

sustained.

###

NRC news releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region III

2443 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532
Exhibit 32.1

@ROAD, INC.  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of @Road, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Krish Panu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



March 15,
2005

/s/KRISH PANU

Krish
Panu
Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
#### § 904.203 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3454 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3454

    To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 with respect to maximum 
   enrollment and eligible land in the conservation reserve program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2011

  Mrs. Roby (for herself, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Bonner, and Mr. 
  Aderholt) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 with respect to maximum 
   enrollment and eligible land in the conservation reserve program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Marginal Lands and 
Protecting Farming Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT.

    Section 1231(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
3831(d)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(d) Maximum Enrollment.--The Secretary may maintain in the 
conservation reserve at any 1 time, not more than--
            ``(1) during fiscal year 2012, 30,000,000 acres;
            ``(2) during fiscal year 2013, 26,000,000 acres; and
            ``(3) during each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017, 
        24,000,000 acres.''.

SEC. 3. INELIGIBLE LAND.

    Section 1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(j) Ineligible Land.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section, after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary 
may not enroll land in the conservation reserve that is classified as 
class I or class II land under the land capability classification 
system published in the National Soil Survey Handbook of the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service.''.
                                 <all>
```
### Part B—Other Miscellaneous Provisions
### **CHAPTER 15—COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS**

Sec.
1501.
Cost Accounting Standards Board.
1502.
Cost accounting standards.
1503.
Contract price adjustment.
1504.
Effect on other standards and regulations.
1505.
Examinations.
1506.
Authorization of appropriations.
§ 890.1008 Mandatory debarment for longer than the minimum length. ( a ) *Aggravating factors.* OPM may debar a provider for longer than the 3-year minimum period for mandatory debarments if aggravating factors are associated with the basis for the debarment. The factors OPM considers to be aggravating are: ( 1 ) Whether the FEHBP incurred a financial loss as the result of the acts underlying the conviction, or similar acts that were not adjudicated, and the level of such loss. In determining the amount of financial loss, OPM shall not consider any amounts of restitution that a provider may have paid;
( 2 ) Whether the sentence imposed by the court included incarceration;
( 3 ) Whether the underlying offense(s), or similar acts not adjudicated, occurred repeatedly over a period of time, and whether there is evidence that the offense(s) was planned in advance;
( 4 ) Whether the provider has a prior record of criminal, civil, or administrative adjudication of related offenses or similar acts; or
( 5 ) Whether the actions underlying the conviction, or similar acts that were not adjudicated, adversely affected the physical, mental, or financial well-being of one or more covered individuals or other persons.
( b ) *Mitigating factors.* If the aggravating factors justify a debarment longer than the 3 year minimum period for mandatory debarments, OPM shall also consider whether mitigating factors may justify reducing the debarment period to not less than 3 years. The factors that OPM considers to be mitigating are: ( 1 ) Whether the conviction(s) on which the debarment is based consist entirely or primarily of misdemeanor offenses;
( 2 ) Whether court records, including associated sentencing reports, contain an official determination that the provider had a physical, mental, or emotional condition before or during the commission of the offenses underlying the conviction that reduced his level of culpability; or
( 3 ) Whether the provider's cooperation with Federal and/or State investigative officials resulted in criminal convictions, civil recoveries, or administrative actions against other individuals, or served as the basis for identifying program weaknesses. Restitution made by the provider for funds wrongfully, improperly, or illegally received from Federal or State programs may also be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
( c ) *Maximum period of debarment.* There is no limit on the maximum period of a mandatory debarment based on a conviction.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In re Sarah Haden

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00405

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 59856

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

The en banc court has unanimously voted to deny relator’s motion for en banc

reconsideration of the denial of relator’s request for temporary relief. * It is ordered that the motion

for en banc reconsideration is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s / _

__ Sarah B. L andau

_______ Acting for the En Banc Court

Date: June 11 , 2019

* En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Higley, Lloyd, Kelly,

Goodman, Landau, Hightower, and Countiss.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2155
STEPHEN F. NARDI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. RAYMOND SHOWALTER, JR.; DORIS SHOWALTER; DAVID BOWMAN, t/a Pro Park, Richmond, VA, t/a Pro Park, Harrisonburg, VA, d/b/a LLC Limited Liability Company; ROBERT GRAVES; SCOTT GRAVES; THOMAS EUBANK; RICK BROWN, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-12-H) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 23, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen F. Nardi, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Thomas St. Ours, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg, Virginia; Holmes Conrad Harrison, III, HARRISON, THUMMA & STARK, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his copyright infringement action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nardi v. Showalter , No. CA-96-12-H (W.D. Va. July 22, 1996). 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
Form 6478

(Rev. January 2020)

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

Biofuel Producer Credit 

▶ Attach to your tax return.

▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form6478 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0231

Attachment 

Sequence No. 83

Name(s) shown on return Identifying number

Type of Fuel (a) 

Number of Gallons 

Sold or Used

(b) 

Rate

(c) 

Column (a) x Column (b)

1 Qualified second generation biofuel production (see instructions 

for election) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 $1.01

2 Enter the amount from column (c) on line 1. Include this amount in your income for the tax year, 

and enter your IRS registration number (see instructions) . . . 2

3 Biofuel producer credit from partnerships, S corporations, cooperatives, estates, and trusts 

(see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4 Add lines 2 and 3. Cooperatives, estates, and trusts, go to line 5. Partnerships and S corporations, 

stop here and report this amount on Schedule K. All others, stop here and report this amount on

the appropriate line of Form 3800 (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5 Amount allocated to patrons of the cooperative or beneficiaries of the estate or trust (see 

instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6 Cooperatives, estates, and trusts, subtract line 5 from line 4. Report this amount on the

appropriate line of Form 3800 (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 13605J Form 6478 (Rev. 1-2020)
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# VR-SECY-13-0061 - Proposed Rule: Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (RIN 3150-AJ20).

Accession Number: ML13217A245

Date Released: Monday, August 5, 2013

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.
    - ML13217A363 - VR-SP13-0061 - Proposed Rule: Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (RIN 3150-AJ20) (2 page(s), 8/5/2013)
    - ML13217A261 - Chairman Macfarlane vote on SECY-13-0061 (113 page(s), 7/12/2013)
    - ML13217A247 - Commissioner Svinicki vote on SECY-13-0061 (100 page(s), 7/17/2013)
    - ML13217A248 - Commissioner Apostolakis vote on SECY-13-0061 (35 page(s), 7/15/2013)
    - ML13217A249 - Commissioner Magwood vote on SECY-13-0061 (104 page(s), 7/12/2013)
    - ML13217A250 - Commissioner Ostendorff vote on SECY-13-0061 (48 page(s), 7/12/2013)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer