alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-15-00088-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

TRINITY RINGELSTEIN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

The Honorable Dante Dominguez, retained counsel for appellant, Trinity 

Ringelstein, has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in this cause. According to the 

motion, counsel requests to withdraw as counsel so that experienced, learned counsel 

may be assigned for the appellant. Because it is unknown whether appellant is entitled 

to appointed counsel on appeal, we ABATE and REMAND this cause as follows. 
2

Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make 

appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether 

appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) whether appellant has been denied 

effective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to 

court-appointed counsel.

If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal and 

that appellant is indigent and entitled to court-appointed counsel, the trial court shall 

appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, 

the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be 

included in an order appointing counsel.

The trial court shall cause its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental 

clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record 

of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental 

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the 

expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed this

the 2nd day of December, 2015.
Subpart 3425.1—Buy American—Supplies

Parent topic: PART 3425—FOREIGN ACQUISITION

3425.103 Exceptions.

The HCA approves determinations under FAR 25.103(b)(2)(i).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2014

p0721 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2014

148975

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148975

COA: 319405

Oakland CC: 2012

- 243127

- FH

RICHARD WESLEY SIMMON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §1883. Office of Small Business Research and Development

The National Science Foundation is authorized and directed to establish an Office of Small Business Research and Development. The Foundation through the Office of Small Business Research and Development and in cooperation and consultation with the Small Business Administration shall—

(1) foster communication between the National Science Foundation and the small business community, and insure that the set-aside for small business concerns provided under this Act or any other Act authorizing appropriations for the National Science Foundation is fully and effectively utilized;

(2) collect, analyze, compile, and publish information concerning grants and contracts awarded to small business concerns by the Foundation, and the procedures for handling proposals submitted by small business concerns;

(3) assist individual small business concerns in obtaining information regarding programs, policies, and procedures of the Foundation, and assure the expeditious processing of proposals by small business concerns based on scientific and technical merit; and

(4) recommend to the Director and to the National Science Board such changes in the procedures and practices of the Foundation as may be required to enable the Foundation to draw fully on the resources of the small business research and development community.

(Pub. L. 94–471, §8, Oct. 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 2057; Pub. L. 99–386, title I, §108, Aug. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 822.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in par. (1), is Pub. L. 94–471, Oct. 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 2053, known as the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1977, which, insofar as classified to the Code, enacted sections 1882 and 1883 of this title, amended section 1863 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 1862, 1864, 1873, and 5820 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1976 Amendment note set out under section 1861 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1977, and not as part of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1986—Par. (5). Pub. L. 99–386 struck out par. (5) which related to quarterly reports to Congress concerning activities of Office of Small Business Research and Development.
#### Bruce JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-2611-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 5, 2007.

Bruce Johnson, pro se, Appellant.

Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General (Margaret Q. Chappie, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Appellees.

PRESENT: Hon. WALKER, Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges, Hon. RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

*43SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Bruce Johnson appeals *pro se*from a judgment of May 2, 2006, entered pursuant to decisions of the District Court granting defendant’s initial and supplemental motions for summary judgment. *See Johnson v. State of Conn. Dep’t of Corr.,*392 F.Supp.2d 326 (D.Conn.2005) (granting in part and denying in part defendant’s initial motion for summary judgment); *Johnson v. State of Conn. Dep’t of Corr.,*428 F.Supp.2d 87 (D.Conn.2006) (granting defendant’s supplemental motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs remaining claims).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged discrimination and retaliation on the basis of his race and religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the issues on appeal and the procedural history.

Having carefully reviewed all of plaintiffs arguments, we affirm the District Court’s decisions for substantially the same reasons set forth in those decisions.

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
#### § 123.6 Foreign trade zones and U.S. Customs and Border Protection bonded warehouses.

Foreign trade zones in the United States and U.S. Customs and Border Protection bonded warehouses are considered integral parts of the United States for the purpose of this subchapter. An export license is therefore not required for shipment between the United States and a foreign trade zone or a U.S. Customs and Border Protection bonded warehouse. In the case of classified defense articles, the provisions of the Department of Defense National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual will apply. An export license is required for all shipments of articles on the U.S. Munitions List from foreign trade zones and U.S. Customs and Border Protection bonded warehouses to foreign countries, regardless of how the articles reached the zone or warehouse.

[71 FR 20540, Apr. 21, 2006]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Memorandum of Understanding and Addenda between USNRC/RES and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) on Cooperative Nuclear Safety Research.

Accession Number: ML16138A554

Date Released: Friday, March 3, 2017

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.
    - ML16138A557 - Memorandum of Understanding and Addenda between USNRC/RES and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) on Cooperative Nuclear Safety Research. (2 page(s), 2/17/2017)
    - ML16138A556 - NDE Addendum to NRC Electric Power Research Institute Memorandum of Understanding. (27 page(s), 2/17/2017)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### §285g–7. Child health research centers

The Director of the Institute shall develop and support centers for conducting research with respect to child health. Such centers shall give priority to the expeditious transfer of advances from basic science to clinical applications and improving the care of infants and children.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §452C, as added Pub. L. 103–43, title X, §1021, June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 167.)
§ 120.41 Specially designed. ( a ) Except for commodities or software described in paragraph (b) of this section, a commodity or software is specially designed if it: ( 1 ) As a result of development, has properties peculiarly responsible for achieving or exceeding the controlled performance levels, characteristics, or functions described in the relevant U.S. Munitions List (USML) paragraph in § 121.1 of this subchapter; or Note 1 to paragraph (a)(1):
An example of a commodity that as a result of development has properties peculiarly responsible for achieving or exceeding the controlled performance levels, functions, or characteristics in a USML category would be a swimmer delivery vehicle specially designed to dock with a submarine to provide submerged transport for swimmers or divers from submarines.
( 2 ) Is a part, component, accessory, attachment, or software for use in or with a defense article.
( b ) For purposes of this subchapter, a part, component, accessory, attachment, or software is not specially designed if it: ( 1 ) Is subject to the EAR pursuant to a commodity jurisdiction determination;
( 2 ) Is, regardless of form or fit, a fastener (e.g., screws, bolts, nuts, nut plates, studs, inserts, clips, rivets, pins), washer, spacer, insulator, grommet, bushing, spring, wire, or solder;
( 3 ) Has the same function, performance capabilities, and the same or equivalent form and fit as a commodity or software used in or with a commodity that: ( i ) Is or was in production (*i.e.,* not in development); and
( ii ) Is not enumerated on the USML;
( 4 ) Was or is being developed with knowledge that it is or would be for use in or with both defense articles enumerated on the USML and also commodities not on the USML; or
( 5 ) Was or is being developed as a general purpose commodity or software, *i.e.,* with no knowledge for use in or with a particular commodity (e.g., a F/A-18 or HMMWV) or type of commodity (e.g., an aircraft or machine tool).
Note 2 to paragraph (b):
For a defense article not to be specially designed on the basis of paragraph (b)(4) or (5) of this section, documents contemporaneous with its development, in their totality, must establish the elements of paragraph (b)(4) or (5). Such documents may include concept design information, marketing plans, declarations in patent applications, or contracts. Absent such documents, the commodity may not be excluded from being specially designed by either paragraph (b)(4) or (5).
Note 3 to paragraph (b):
For the purpose of paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section, “knowledge” includes not only the positive knowledge a circumstance exists or is substantially certain to occur, but also an awareness of a high probability of its existence or future occurrence. Such awareness is inferred from evidence of the conscious disregard of facts known to a person and is also inferred from a person's willful avoidance of facts.
CCOMMONWEALTHofVIRGINIADouglasW.DomenechSecretaryofNaturalResourcesDEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALQUALITYStreetaddress,629EastMainStreet,Richmond,Virginia23219Mailingaddress:P.O.Box1105,Richmond,Virginia23218TDD(804)698-4021www.deq.virginia.govDavidK.PaylorDirector(804)698-40001-800-592-5482SEP272010Ms.DianaEsher,DirectorAirProtectionDivision(3APOO)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,RegionIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029DearMs.Esher:RECEIVEDSEP292010DivisionDirector(3APOO)Reference:Case-by-caseRACTDeterminations,Correction,RevisionE04cPursuanttotherequirementsof§110oftheCleanAirAct,weareofficiallyrequestingapprovalofarevisiontotheCommonwealthofVirginiaStateImplementationPlan(SIP)approvedandsubmittedundertheauthorityof§10.1-1185oftheCodeofVirginiaandinaccordancewiththerequirementsof40CFRPart51(RequirementsforPreparation,Adoption,andSubmittalofImplementationPlans).Thisrevisionconsistsofacorrectiontotheregulation(Article51of9VAC5-40,ExistingStationarySources)thatcontainstherequirementsformakingcase-by-casereasonablyavailablecontroltechnology(RACT)determinations.Theoriginalregulatoryaction(RevisionE04)madeanumberofrevisionstotheregulation,whichwereadoptedbytheStateAirPollutionControlBoardonSeptember25,2006,andsubsequentlysubmittedtoEPAasaSIPrevisiononSeptember8,2008.TwotypographicerrorswereidentifiedduringEPA’sreviewofthisrevision,andonNoveniber3,2009(74FR56754),EPAproposedapprovalofRevisionE04contingentuponthecorrectionoftheseerrors.ThecorrectionswereadoptedbytheboardonNovember20,2009undertheauthorityof§10.1-1308oftheCodeofVirginia.CEnclosedarethefollowing:1.Atruecopyoftheofficialregulation(RevisionE04c)whichwaspublishedintheVirginiaRegisterofRegulationsonDecember21,2009afterbeingdulyadoptedbytheStateAirPollutionControlBoardonNovember20,2009,certifiedbytheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralaswithintheboard’sstatutoryauthorityonNovember23,2009,andthusfullyenforceableunderVirginialaw,andsubmittedtotheVirginiaRegistraronbehalfoftheboardbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityasatrueandaccuratecopyofthedulyadoptedregulationonNovember30,2009,providingtheevidencerequiredbySection2.1(b)and(e)ofAppendixVof40CFRPart51.2.Certificationofpublicparticipationactivitiesandcompliancewithstateadministrativeprocedures.3.Publicparticipationrecord.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorneedadditionalinformation,pleaseletusknow.Since‘y,DavidK.PaylorDKP\kgsTEMPLATES\SIP-REG\REGOOSIP\NONATTNAREAS\201O\E04c-SIP.DOCEnclosures
EX-32.2 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906

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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of TS&B Holdings, Inc., (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, James V. Sadrianna, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that
to my knowledge:

(1)    
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)    
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ James V. SadriannaJames V. Sadrianna, Chief
Financial Officer May 20, 2004
First Amendment to Split-Dollar Agreement



 






Exhibit 10.51




FIRST AMENDMENT TO SPLIT-DOLLAR AGREEMENT BETWEEN

MASTEC, INC. AND JOSE MAS

DATED MARCH 11, 2005




     This Amendment made and entered into this 6th day of January, 2006, effective as of January 1,
2005, by and between MasTec, Inc., a Florida corporation, with principal offices and place of
business in the State of Florida (the “Corporation”) and Jose Mas, an individual residing in the
state of Florida (the “Employee”).



     WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Employee entered into a Split-Dollar Agreement on March 11,
2005, effective as of August 3, 2004 (the “Agreement”), to govern the rights and obligations of the
parties with respect to that certain life insurance policy issued by The Hartford Financial
Services Group Inc., insuring the life of the Employee (the “Policy”), which Policy is described in
Exhibit A of the Agreement; and



     WHEREAS, in accordance with paragraph 13 of the Agreement, the parties desire to amend the
Agreement to modify certain of their respective rights and obligations with respect to such
Policies;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises contained herein,
the parties hereto hereby amend the Agreement, as follows, effective as of January 1, 2005.



     1. Paragraph 8 is amended by deleting the paragraph in its entirety, and substituting the
following in lieu thereof:




     8. Termination of the Agreement During the Employee’s Lifetime. This Agreement
shall terminate, during the Employee’s lifetime, without notice, upon the occurrence of any
of the following events: (a) the Corporation’s (i) bankruptcy (with the approval of a
bankruptcy court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 503(b)(1)(A)), or (ii) dissolution taxed
under Section 331 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Code”); or (b) the date
of a change in control, within the meaning of Code Section 409A, due to (i) one person, or
more than one person acting as a group, acquiring



 









 






     ownership of stock of the Corporation constituting more than 50% of the total fair market
value or total voting power of such stock, or (ii) a majority of the Corporation’s board of
directors being replaced during any 12-month period by directors whose appointment or
election is not endorsed by a majority of the Corporation’s board of directors prior to the
date of such appointment or election.



     2. Except as herein amended, the parties hereby ratify and confirm the Agreement in all
respects, effective as of January 1, 2005.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MASTEC, INC.

 	 
	 	By /s/ Austin Shanfelter
 	 
	 	Austin Shanfelter, President 	 
	 	"Corporation" 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Attest

 	 
	 	/s/ Alberto de Cardenas
 	 
	 	Secretary 	 
	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ Jorge Mas
 	 
	 	Jorge Mas 	 
	 	"Employee" 	 
	 




- 2 -
#### § 242.503 Certain foreign research reports.

A foreign person, located outside the United States and not associated with a registered broker or dealer, who prepares a research report concerning a foreign security and provides it to a U.S. person in the United States in accordance with the provisions of § 240.15a-6(a)(2) of this chapter shall be exempt from the requirements of this regulation.
### §2040. Fellowship program of Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; selection of fellowships

To assist the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in carrying out its function, the committee shall establish a fellowship program under which persons having appropriate engineering or scientific expertise are assigned particular tasks relating to the functions of the committee. Such fellowship shall be for 2-year periods and the recipients of such fellowships shall be selected pursuant to such criteria as may be established by the committee.

(Pub. L. 95–209, §6, Dec. 13, 1977, 91 Stat. 1483.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Caliber Energy, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2006,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  David  Naylor,
Principal  Financial  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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/     David Naylor
David Naylor
Treasurer, CFO and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)



August 11, 2006


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1422.22 Inconclusive elections. ( a ) An inconclusive election is one in which none of the choices on the ballot is declared the winner. If there are no challenged ballots that would affect the results of the election, the Regional Director may declare the election a nullity and may order another election providing for a selection from among the choices afforded in the previous ballot.
( b ) Only one further election pursuant to this section may be held.