alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by

assignment. 

NO. 07-01-0415-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

SEPTEMBER 3, 2002

______________________________

BLANCA LIZETH QUACH, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 176TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;

NO. 851942; HONORABLE MARY BACON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ, and BOYD, SJ.1

On May 16, 2001, appellant Blanca Lizeth Quach was adjudged guilty of murder

and, on May 17, 2001, sentenced to 60 years confinement in the Institutional Division of
2

the Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant gave a timely notice of appeal and, under

equalization of docket proceedings, the appeal was transferred to this court for disposition.

Appellant’s attorney has now filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders

brief. See Anders v. California, 398 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967). In that brief, she certifies that after careful examination of the record, she has

concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with her brief, she has attached

a copy of a letter sent to appellant notifying her of counsel’s intent to withdraw and

appellant’s right to proceed pro se. This court also informed appellant by letter dated April

24, 2002, that if she wished to file a response, she had until May 22, 2002, to do so. To

date, neither a response nor a motion for extension of time to file a response has been

received.

In considering requests of this type, we must first satisfy ourselves that the attorney

has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable

claim that might support her client’s appeal. After doing so, we must then determine if

counsel has correctly concluded the appeal is frivolous. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals

of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

In discussing whether any possible viable grounds for appeal exist, counsel gave

a resume of the pertinent evidence and noted that she found no viable grounds for appeal.

We also have made an independent examination of the entire record to determine whether
3

there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. Staffer v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds and agree with

counsel that the appeal is without merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Currie v. State, 516

S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed. 

John T. Boyd

Senior Justice

Do not publish.
### §299b–23. Network of patient safety databases

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall facilitate the creation of, and maintain, a network of patient safety databases that provides an interactive evidence-based management resource for providers, patient safety organizations, and other entities. The network of databases shall have the capacity to accept, aggregate across the network, and analyze nonidentifiable patient safety work product voluntarily reported by patient safety organizations, providers, or other entities. The Secretary shall assess the feasibility of providing for a single point of access to the network for qualified researchers for information aggregated across the network and, if feasible, provide for implementation.

#### (b) Data standards

The Secretary may determine common formats for the reporting to and among the network of patient safety databases maintained under subsection (a) of nonidentifiable patient safety work product, including necessary work product elements, common and consistent definitions, and a standardized computer interface for the processing of such work product. To the extent practicable, such standards shall be consistent with the administrative simplification provisions of part C of title XI of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.].

#### (c) Use of information

Information reported to and among the network of patient safety databases under subsection (a) shall be used to analyze national and regional statistics, including trends and patterns of health care errors. The information resulting from such analyses shall be made available to the public and included in the annual quality reports prepared under section 299b–2(b)(2) of this title.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IX, §923, as added Pub. L. 109–41, §2(a)(5), July 29, 2005, 119 Stat. 431.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Part C of title XI of the Act is classified generally to part C (§1320d et seq.) of subchapter XI of chapter 7 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 923 of act July 1, 1944, was renumbered section 943 and is classified to section 299c–2 of this title.

Another prior section 923 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 299c–2 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 106–129.
#### § 449.4 Form G-FIN-5, notification of termination of association with a financial institution that is a government securities broker or dealer pursuant to section 15C(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and § 400.4 of this chapter.

This form is to be used by financial institutions that are government securities brokers or dealers to notify the appropriate regulatory agency of the fact that an associated person is no longer associated with the government securities broker or dealer function of the financial institution. The form is promulgated by the Department of the Treasury and is available from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the SEC.

[52 FR 27956, July 24, 1987, as amended at 79 FR 38456, July 8, 2014]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-509 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SPACE COOPERATION 

Miniature Synthetic Aperture 

Radar Instrument 

 Memorandum of Understanding between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and INDIA 

Signed at Bangalore May 9, 2006 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
INDIA 

 Space Cooperation: Miniature Synthetic 

 Aperture Radar Instrument 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Bangalore May 9, 2006; 

 Entered into force May 9, 2006.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTO MARTINEZ LEYVA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-75989

Agency No. A095-303-201

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 22, 2008** 

San Francisco, California

Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Roberto Martinez Levya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding

of removal, and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8

FILED

JUL 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the agency’s

decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a

motion to remand. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny the petition for review. 

The record does not compel the conclusion that extraordinary circumstances

excuse the untimely filing of Martinez Levya’s asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §

1208.4(a)(5); Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, the asylum claim is denied. Because Martinez Levya did not raise

the issue to the IJ or BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider whether the agency erred

in interpreting the term “minor” in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(ii) to refer to persons

under eighteen years of age, as opposed to persons under twenty-one years of age.

See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Before a

petitioner can raise an argument on appeal the petitioner must first raise it before

the BIA or the IJ.”) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)). We note that Martinez Levya was

twenty-two years of age at the time of his merits hearing before the IJ and his

appeal to the BIA. 

We deny the petition with respect to the withholding of removal claim

because Martinez Levya failed to show that the government, or groups that the
3

government is unable or unwilling to control, persecuted him in the past or that he

faces a clear probability of future persecution by such groups or the Mexican

government. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez Levya’s motion to

remand because the motion was not supported by evidence showing prima facie

eligibility for relief. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
North Highlands Bog Marsh Report 2005

Remember, these are just some of the places to see wetlands. Virtually every state park in 

Minnesota has at least some kind of wetland to experience. From floodplain forests along river 

bottoms to the Lake Superior shoreline to streams and waterfalls to the compelling story of 

groundwater in Mystery Cave, each park has a unique story to tell you about the value of 

wetlands.
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:18 AM 

To: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda 

Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; 

Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily 

Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, 

Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna 

Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew 

Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; 

Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard W. Parker; Rick 

Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; 

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom 

Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: Transformer Reg-Neg: Volunteers for Technical Committee on MVDT 

Dear Colleagues, 

So far Wes Patterson and Eric Petersen have stepped forward to participate in technical exercise 

to adapt agreement on DL 12 to other MVDT DLs. If you are interested in participating in this 

exercise and have not yet notified me, or if I missed your email, please let me know today, so the 

group can get started. 

All best, 

Richard Parker
Exhibit
        10.4

    

     

    

    


     

    December
      19, 2005

     

    Dear
      Debentureholder:

     

    
      	 	
              Re:

            	
              Apollo
                Gold Corporation - Series 2004-B Convertible Secured Debentures (the
                "Debentures")- Further Reduction of Warrant
                Pricing

            


    

     

    Further
      to the letter sent to you dated December 8, 2005 from WeirFoulds LLP, special
      counsel to The Canada Trust Company (the “Trustee”)
      in
      connection with a second substitution of collateral by Apollo Gold Corporation
      (“Apollo
      Gold”),
      we
      wish to advise that Apollo Gold management has now had the opportunity to hold
      discussions with the majority of the holders of the Debentures to discuss this
      matter. The consensus of these discussions is that a further reduction in the
      warrant pricing would be desired. Apollo Gold wishes to advise that it will
      agree to a further reduction of the exercise price of the warrants you received
      together with the Debenture from
      US$0.80 to US$0.40
      if the
      substitution of the Cash Collateral with a charge over the Black Fox Property
      is
      completed. Upon completion of such substitution of collateral, you will be
      sent
      a new warrant certificate setting out the amended exercise price.

     

    Regards,

     

    


     

    R
      David
      Russell

     

    President
      & CEO

     

    Apollo
      Gold Corporation
### §3614a. Rules to implement subchapter

The Secretary may make rules (including rules for the collection, maintenance, and analysis of appropriate data) to carry out this subchapter. The Secretary shall give public notice and opportunity for comment with respect to all rules made under this section.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, §815, as added Pub. L. 100–430, §8(2), Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1635.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 815 of Pub. L. 90–284 was renumbered section 816 and is classified to section 3615 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on 180th day beginning after Sept. 13, 1988, see section 13(a) of Pub. L. 100–430, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 3601 of this title.

#### Initial Rulemaking

Secretary to issue rules to implement this subchapter as amended by Pub. L. 100–430 not later than the 180th day after Sept. 13, 1988, see section 13(b) of Pub. L. 100–430, set out as a note under section 3601 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4419 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4419

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic filament tow.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

Mr. Bishop of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic filament tow.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC FILAMENT TOW.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Acrylic filament    Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          tow                                                               12/31/2015
                          (polyacrylonitril
                          e tow) containing
                          by weight 92
                          percent or more
                          of
                          polyacrylonitrile
                          , not more than
                          0.01 percent of
                          zinc, and 2
                          percent or more
                          but not over 8
                          percent of water,
                          importing in the
                          form of bundles
                          of crimped
                          product 198,000
                          filaments (plus
                          or minus 10
                          percent) with an
                          average decitex
                          of 4.0 to 5.6
                          decitex (plus or
                          minus 10 percent)
                          and length
                          greater than 2
                          meters (provided
                          for in subheading
                          5501.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert Livingston Stedman, Inc., v. 344 West 72nd Street Corporation.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
### §300j–22. Recall of drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks

For purposes of the Consumer Product Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.], all drinking water coolers identified by the Administrator on the list under section 300j–23 of this title as having a lead-lined tank shall be considered to be imminently hazardous consumer products within the meaning of section 12 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2061). After notice and opportunity for comment, including a public hearing, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall issue an order requiring the manufacturers and importers of such coolers to repair, replace, or recall and provide a refund for such coolers within 1 year after October 31, 1988. For purposes of enforcement, such order shall be treated as an order under section 15(d) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2064(d)).

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIV, §1462, as added Pub. L. 100–572, §2(a), Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2885; amended Pub. L. 104–182, title V, §501(f)(8), Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1692.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Consumer Product Safety Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 92–573, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1207, which is classified generally to chapter 47 (§2051 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2051 of Title 15 and Tables.

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–182 made technical amendment to section catchline and first word of text.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 69395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26227]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 21, 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''), IMS Global Learning 
Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Sentient Consulting Limited, Liverpool, United Kingdom; 
ACT Consultants Ltd., Sheffield, United Kingdom; and UK eUniversities 
Worldwide Limited, London, United Kingdom have been dropped as parties 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 
55283).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 29, 
2004. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on August 6, 2004 (69 FR 47959).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-26227 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 22

- 1100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Appellee ,

v.

LAVENEUR JACKSON ,
Defendant, Appellant

.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on January 23, 2023, is amended as follows:

On page 16, line 23 , to page 17, line 2, delete the following text : " , absent Forte's testimony, the record would not suffice to permit a rational juror to find that the guns at issue traveled in interstate commerce. So, "
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: September 11, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT: August 22, 2014 Meeting and Tribal Consultation with Fort Mojave Tribe Regarding 

Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 22, 2014 to discuss 

the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants and the forthcoming Supplemental Proposal 

for Tribes and Territories. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 

2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

 Luke Johnson, Environmental Director

 Christine Medley, GAP Coordinator

 Walter Roderick, Emergency Programs and Environmental Response

EPA

 Tom Powers, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Air and Radiation

 Melanie King, Office of Air Quality Planning and

 Standards (OAQPS)

 Matt Clouse, EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs

 Nate Topham, OAQPS

 Mary Johnson, OAQPS

 Rick Vetter, Office of General Counsel

 Amy Zimpfer, Associate Director, Region 9 Air Division

 Anita Lee, Region 9 Air Division

 Destinee Cooper, Region 9 Land Division

Calpine

 Kurt Fetters, General Manager of South Point Energy Center

 Barbara McBride, Director of Environmental Services

 Bruce Carlson, Director of Environmental Health and Safety

ATTACHMENTS

 Powerpoint presentation titled “Clean Power Plan_Consultation with Fort Mojave Tribe_082214.pptx”
#### § 238.6 Transferability of Guarantee; Note Register.

A Noteholder may assign, transfer or pledge an Eligible Note to any Person. Any such assignment, transfer or pledge shall be effective on the date that the name of the new Noteholder is entered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement. USAID shall be entitled to treat the Persons in whose names the Eligible Notes are registered as the owners thereof for all purposes of the Guarantee, and USAID shall not be affected by notice to the contrary.