alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JAMES MICHAEL DURGIN,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10449

D.C. No. 3:19

- cr

- 00333

- WHO

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William H. Orrick, III, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

James Michael Durgin appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challeng es the 15

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 751(a), 4082(a). We have

jurisdi ction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 10449

Durgin contends that the district court impermissibly lengthen ed his

sentence in order to promote his rehabilitation in violation of Tapia v. United

States

, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). We review for plain error, see United States v. Grant

,

664 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 2011), and conclude that there is none. The district

court ’s recommend ation that the Bureau of Prisons designate Durgin to a facility in

Massachusetts near his family who could support him when he is released was not

improper

. See Tapia

, 564 U.S. at 334 ( district court does not run afoul of 18

U.S.C. § 3582(a) by recommending a specific prison facility for the defendant).

Moreover, w hile the court briefly referenced the need for the sentence to promote

rehabilitation, the record shows that rehabilitation played no role in the court’s

sentencing decision. Rather, the court selected a sen tence at the bottom of the

Guidelines range

, with no supervised release to follow

, after considering only

proper sentencing factors, including the need to provide just punishment for the

offense and Durgin’s criminal history and characteristics

. See 18 U. S.C. § 3553(a).

AFFIRMED.
§ 990.51 Injury assessment—injury determination. ( a ) *General.* After issuing a Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning under § 990.44 of this part, trustees must determine if injuries to natural resources and/or services have resulted from the incident.
( b ) *Determining injury.* To make the determination of injury, trustees must evaluate if: ( 1 ) The definition of injury has been met, as defined in § 990.30 of this part; and
( 2 ) ( i ) An injured natural resource has been exposed to the discharged oil, and a pathway can be established from the discharge to the exposed natural resource; or
( ii ) An injury to a natural resource or impairment of a natural resource service has occurred as a result of response actions or a substantial threat of a discharge of oil.
( c ) *Identifying injury.* Trustees must determine whether an injury has occurred and, if so, identify the nature of the injury. Potential categories of injury include, but are not limited to, adverse changes in: survival, growth, and reproduction; health, physiology and biological condition; behavior; community composition; ecological processes and functions; physical and chemical habitat quality or structure; and public services.
( d ) *Establishing exposure and pathway.* Except for injuries resulting from response actions or incidents involving a substantial threat of a discharge of oil, trustees must establish whether natural resources were exposed, either directly or indirectly, to the discharged oil from the incident, and estimate the amount or concentration and spatial and temporal extent of the exposure. Trustees must also determine whether there is a pathway linking the incident to the injuries. Pathways may include, but are not limited to, the sequence of events by which the discharged oil was transported from the incident and either came into direct physical contact with a natural resource, or caused an indirect injury.
( e ) *Injuries resulting from response actions or incidents involving a substantial threat of a discharge.* For injuries resulting from response actions or incidents involving a substantial threat of a discharge of oil, trustees must determine whether an injury or an impairment of a natural resource service has occurred as a result of the incident.
( f ) *Selection of injuries to include in the assessment.* When selecting potential injuries to assess, trustees should consider factors such as: ( 1 ) The natural resources and services of concern;
( 2 ) The procedures available to evaluate and quantify injury, and associated time and cost requirements;
( 3 ) The evidence indicating exposure;
( 4 ) The pathway from the incident to the natural resource and/or service of concern;
( 5 ) The adverse change or impairment that constitutes injury;
( 6 ) The evidence indicating injury;
( 7 ) The mechanism by which injury occurred;
( 8 ) The potential degree, and spatial and temporal extent of the injury;
( 9 ) The potential natural recovery period; and
( 10 ) The kinds of primary and/or compensatory restoration actions that are feasible.
§ 971.209 Processing outside the United States. ( a ) Except as provided in this section and § 971.408, the processing of hard minerals recovered pursuant to a permit shall be conducted within the U.S., provided that the President or his designee does not determine that this restriction contravenes the overriding national interests of the United States.
( b ) If foreign processing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a justification demonstrating the basis for a finding pursuant to § 971.408(a)(1). The justification shall include an analysis of each factor which the applicant considers essential to its conclusion that processing at a site within the U.S. is not economically viable.
( c ) If the Administrator determines that the justification provided by the applicant is insufficient, or if the Administrator receives during the public comment or hearing period what the Administrator determines to be a serious alternative U.S. processing site proposal, the Administrator may require the applicant to supply, within a specified reasonable time, additional information relevant to the § 971.408(a)(1) finding.
( d ) The applicant must include in its application satisfactory assurances that such resources after processing, to the extent of the permittee's ownership therein, will be returned to the United States for domestic use if the Administrator determines pursuant to § 971.408 that the national interest necessitates such return. Assurances must include proposed arrangements with the host country.
### Part E—Miscellaneous Provisions

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 108–173, title I, §101(a)(1), Dec. 8, 2003, 117 Stat. 2071, redesignated part D of this subchapter as part E.

Pub. L. 105–33, title IV, §4001, Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 275, redesignated part C of this subchapter as part D.
**VENONA Historical Monograph #2:**
** The 1942-43 New York-Moscow KGB MessagesH3>BR>
     The release of VENONA translations involved careful consideration of
**
#### § 9.3 Appliances and equipment included in program.

The appliances and equipment included in this program are room and central air conditioners, household refrigerators, home freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, clothes dryers, kitchen ranges and ovens, water heaters, comfort heating equipment, and television receivers. Additional appliances and equipment may be included in the program by the Secretary pursuant to rule making procedures as set out in 5 U.S.C. 553. Individual units of appliances and equipment manufactured for export are not included in this program.

[38 FR 29574, Oct. 26, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 33966, Aug. 13, 1975]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-14-0129 - Cyber Security Event Notification (CSEN) Final Rule

Accession Number: ML14136A209

Date Released: Friday, December 5, 2014

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.
    - ML14136A212 - SECY-14-0129:  Rulemaking:  Final Rule:  Cyber Security Event Notification (CSEN) (8 page(s), 11/20/2014)
    - ML14324A256 - SECY-14-0129:  Enclosure 1 - History of Cyber Security Event Notification Rulemaking Activities (5 page(s), 11/20/2014)
    - ML14136A214 - SECY-14-0129:  Enclosurse 2 - Federal Register Notice for Final Rule:  Cyber Security Event Notifications (Draft) (53 page(s), 11/20/2014)
    - ML14170B076 - SECY-14-0129:  Enclosure 4 - Regulatory Analysis for Final Rule on Cyber Security Event Notifications (10 CFR Part 73) (61 page(s), 11/20/2014)
    - ML14136A211 - SECY-14-0129:  Supplemental Information - Rulemaking: Final Rule:  Cyber Security Event Notification (CSEN) Congressional Letters (6 page(s), 11/20/2014)
    - ML14203A269 - SECY-14-0129:  Supplemental Information - Rulemaking:  Final Rule:  Cyber Security Event Notification (CSEN) Final Rule OMB Statement (12 page(s), 11/20/2014)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### subpart 3—common provisions
#### § 960.11 No additional conditions.

No other conditions shall be included in a license granted under this part, or imposed in such a license after the license has been issued, except in accordance with the provisions of § 960.13 or § 960.17.
### §606. Disposition of seized mail

Every package or parcel seized by an officer or employee of the Postal Service performing duties related to the inspection of postal matters, a customs officer, or United States marshal or his deputies, in which a letter is unlawfully concealed, shall be forfeited to the United States. The same proceedings may be used to enforce forfeitures as are authorized in respect of goods, wares, and merchandise forfeited for violation of the revenue laws. Laws for the benefit and protection of customs officers making seizures for violating revenue laws apply to officers and employees making seizures for violating the postal laws.

(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 728.)

#### **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.
Order entered December 1 6 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 01024
- CR SIMON SAMUEL LOPEZ, JR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 80596
- 10



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 13, 2016 motion to withdraw as attorney and
motion to extend time to file his brief.
We GRANT appellant’s motion to with draw as appointed counsel on appeal. We
DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to remove Tim Avery as appointed counsel for the appeal.
We ORDER the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant on appeal. We
ORDER the trial court to transmit a suppleme ntal clerk’s record containing the order appointing
new counsel to this Court within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.
We GRANT appellant’s motion to extend time to file his brief. Appellant’s brief shall be
filed at a date to be determined after the trial court appoints new counsel and the appeal is
reinstated.We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. We will

reinstate the appeal when we receive the order appointing new counsel.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Bella Wrubel, Appellant, v. *964Eddy Glickman, Respondent.

The parties hereto having stipulated in open court that this case may be disposed of by a court of four, the decision is as follows: Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred.
§ 1203.12 Test requirements. ( a ) *Peripheral vision.* All bicycle helmets shall allow unobstructed vision through a minimum of 105° to the left and right sides of the midsagittal plane when measured in accordance with § 1203.14 of this standard.
( b ) *Positional stability.* No bicycle helmet shall come off of the test headform when tested in accordance with § 1203.15 of this standard.
( c ) *Dynamic strength of retention system.* All bicycle helmets shall have a retention system that will remain intact without elongating more than 30 mm (1.2 in.) when tested in accordance with § 1203.16 of this standard.
( d ) *Impact attenuation criteria* — ( 1 ) *General.* A helmet fails the impact attenuation performance test of this standard if a failure under paragraph (d)(2) of this section can be induced under any combination of impact site, anvil type, anvil impact order, or conditioning environment permissible under the standard, either with or without any attachments, or combinations of attachments, that are provided with the helmet. Thus, the Commission will test for a “worst case” combination of test parameters. What constitutes a worst case may vary, depending on the particular helmet involved.
( 2 ) *Peak acceleration.* The peak acceleration of any impact shall not exceed 300 g when the helmet is tested in accordance with § 1203.17 of this standard.
§ 1.83 Whether to commence the process for an environmental impact statement. ( a ) The Bureau responsible for submitting a proposed rule, guide, or proposal for legislation to the Commission for agency action shall, after consultation with the Office of the General Counsel, initially determine whether or not the proposal is one which requires an environmental impact statement. Except for matters where the environmental effects, if any, would appear to be either ( 1 ) clearly significant and therefore the decision is made to prepare an environmental impact statement, or
( 2 ) so uncertain that environmental analysis would be based on speculation, the Bureau should normally prepare an “environmental assessment” CEQ Regulation (40 CFR 1508.9) for purposes of providing sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. The Bureau should involve environmental agencies to the extent practicable in preparing an assessment. An environmental assessment shall be made available to the public when the proposed action is made public along with any ensuing environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact.
( b ) If the Bureau determines that the proposal is one which requires an environmental impact statement, it shall commence the “scoping process” CEQ Regulation (40 CFR 1501.7) except that the impact statement which is part of a proposal for legislation need not go through a scoping process but shall conform to CEQ Regulation (40 CFR 1506.8). As soon as practicable after its decision to prepare an environmental impact statement and before the scoping process, the Bureau shall publish a notice of intent as provided in CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22).
( c ) If, on the basis of an environmental assessment, the determination is made not to prepare a statement, a finding of “no significant impact” shall be made in accordance with CEQ Regulation (40 CFR 1508.3) and shall be made available to the public as specified in CEQ Regulation (40 CFR 1506.6).
§ 1101.51 Commission interpretation. ( a ) *Statutory provisions.* Section 6(b)(7) of the CPSA provides: If the Commission finds that, in the administration of this Act, it has made public disclosure of inaccurate or misleading information which reflects adversely upon the safety of any consumer product or class of consumer products, or the practices of any manufacturer, private labeler, distributor, or retailer of consumer products, it shall, in a manner equivalent to that in which such disclosure was made, take reasonable steps to publish a retraction of such inaccurate or misleading information.
( b ) *Scope.* Section 6(b)(7) applies to inaccurate or misleading information only if it is *adverse—i.e.,* if it reflects adversely either on the safety of a consumer product or on the practices of a manufacturer, private labeler, distributor or retailer. In addition, the Commission will apply section 6(b)(7) to information about products, and about manufacturers and private labelers of products, the Commission may regulate under any of the statutes it administers. Section 6(b)(7) applies to information already disclosed by the Commission, members of the Commission, or the Commission employees, agents, contractors or representatives in their official capacities.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67949-67950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25835]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Software Defined Radio Form

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Software Defined Radio 
Forum (``SDR Forum'' has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
(1) the name and principal place of business of the standards 
development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards 
development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: The Software 
Defined Radio Forum, Denver, CO. The nature and scope of SDR Forum's 
standards development activities are: (a) To promote the development 
and application of a compatible modular technology base for software-
defined information transfer systems and devices; (b) to comprise an 
international group of equipment vendors, subsystem vendors, software 
developers, technology developers, communication service providers, 
research and engineering organizations, government users, regulators 
and other interested parties who share the common business interest of 
supporting the advancement of a compatible modular technology base for 
multimode multiband information transfer systems and devices; (c) to 
promote the development and application of such technology worldwide; 
(d) to promote national and international compatibility

[[Page 67950]]

and interoperability for such technology; (e) to develop and/or 
promulgate uniform standards for such technology; and (f) to conduct 
cooperative research, perform tests and prepare and disseminate 
informational materials relating to such technology.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25835 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
EX-10.1



 




Exhibit 10.1


Second Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement between Osteotech, Inc. and

Community Blood Center d/b/a Community Tissue Services




     This
Second Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement (“Amendment”)
is entered into as of the 14th
day of May, 2007 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between Community Blood Center, an Ohio
not-for-profit corporation also doing business as Community Tissue Services (“CTS”), and Osteotech,
Inc. (“OTI”), a Delaware corporation.



RECITALS



1. OTI and CTS entered into a Tissue Recovery Agreement (“Agreement”) dated as of March 1, 2006, as
amended by the First Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement dated as of February 17, 2007 (as
amended, the “Agreement”).



2. OTI and CTS now desire to amend the Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, OTI and CTS hereby
agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:





	 	1.	 	Section 1.1.1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to add CTS shall provide
Whole Tissue Donors, male up to age ** and female up to age **, to OTI. ****** CTS shall endeavor to provide *** donors in the first **
months of this agreement and a minimum of *** donors annually thereafter. Quantities
are subject to adjustment for an increase in donor base and changes in criteria which
could adversely impact donor supply.
	 
	 	2.	 	Exhibit C, Tissue Reimbursement Fee Schedule, is hereby amended to add a fee of
$****** for each Whole Tissue Donor provided.
	 
	 	3.	 	Section 1.1.2(d) of the Agreement is hereby amended to remove the donor consent
from the Donor Eligibility documents that CTS provides to Osteotech.
	 
	 	4.	 	Exhibit D, Whole Donor Tissues, is added




 









 











EXHIBIT D




Whole Donor Tissue




	 	 	 	 	 
	*****
	 	 	*	 
	**************************************************
	 	 	*	 
	***********
	 	 	*	 
	***********
	 	 	*	 
	******
	 	 	*	 
	*******************************
	 	 	*	 
	************************
	 	 	*	 
	*************************
	 	 	*	 
	**************
	 	 	*	 
	***************
	 	 	*	 





Additional Tissue Desired if available and procured




	 	 	 	 	 
	******
	 	 	*	 
	****
	 	 	*	 
	*****
	 	 	*	 
	*******
	 	 	*	 






     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands as of the Amendment
Effective Date.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Osteotech, Inc.	 	 	 	Community Blood Center

d/b/a Community Tissue Services
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 /s/ Sam Owusu-Akyaw	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 /s/ Julia M. Belden	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	 Sam Owusu-Akyaw	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Julia M. Belden	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Chief Financial Officer	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 







2
§ 1031.16 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart sets forth the Consumer Product Safety Commission's criteria and requirements governing public review and comment on staff involvement in the activities of voluntary standards development bodies.
( b ) The Commission realizes there are advantages and benefits afforded by greater public awareness of staff involvement in standards development activities. Furthermore, the Commission recognizes public comment and input as an important part of the voluntary standards development process.
( c ) The purpose of this subpart is to further the objectives and programs of the Commission and to do so in a manner that ensures openness and transparency.