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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

CHARLES W. PREE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-30221

D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00008-BMM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Charles W. Pree appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea conviction and six-month sentence for theft of government property,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Pree’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,

FILED

JUL 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Pree the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-30221
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.0

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Abington Community Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert W. White, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jack J.
Sandoski, Senior Vice President and Chief 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:


        (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 results of operations of
        the Company.


                                              /s/ Robert W. White
                                              -----------------------------
                                              Robert W. White
                                              Chairman, President and
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              March 28, 2005


                                              /s/ Jack J. Sandoski
                                              -----------------------------
                                              Jack J. Sandoski
                                              Senior Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              March 28, 2005


        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Abington Community Bancorp,
        Inc. and will be retained by Abington Community Bancorp, Inc. and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 41

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

#### § 41.42 [Reserved]
Third Amendment to Executive Change of Control Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.4

 THIRD AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT 

This THIRD AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT, dated November 4, 2010, is by and between CIRCOR, Inc., a
Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), and Alan J. Glass (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive entered into an executive change in control agreement made as of August 8, 2000, as amended on December 7, 2001 and December 23, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to increase the benefits to which the Executive may become entitled to upon a Change in Control (as defined
in the Agreement). 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive, each intending to be legally bound hereby, do mutually
covenant and agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “one
(1) times” with the following: 
 “two (2) times” 

2. Section 3(a)(iv) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “one (1) year” with the following:

 “two (2) years” 
 3. The Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect as to all other provisions under said Agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  


			
	CIRCOR, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ A. William Higgins

	Name:	 	A. William Higgins
	Title:	 	Chairman, President & CEO
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Alan J. Glass

	Alan J. Glass
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 5
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 5
OSWER/OSRTI

Washington, DC 20460

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL)

***Final Site*** September 2010 

VIENNA WELLS Vienna, Missouri

Maries County 

 Site Location:

The Vienna Wells site is located in Maries County, Vienna, Missouri. The site is located on a low ridge that lies between 

the Gasconade and Maries River Valley.

 Site History:

The Vienna Wells site includes three contaminated public drinking water wells and the suspected source area, the former 

Langenberg Hat Factory facility. The Langenberg Hat Factory facility operated from 1952 until 1996. In 2007, the 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Public Drinking Water Branch (PDWB) requested an investigation to 

determine the source of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in the Vienna Wells public drinking water supply. Based on the 

investigation, MDNR determined the Langenberg Hat Factory facility was a suspected source of the PCE contamination. 

 Site Contamination/Contaminants:

PCE has been detected in Well #1 and Well #3 over a 10-year period. Site Inspection sampling in 2007 and 2008 

confirmed the presence of PCE in the public drinking water wells and in the distribution system, indicating there is actual 

exposure to PCE. The most recent sampling results for Well #3 indicate concentrations exceeding the Safe Drinking Water 

Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for PCE in November 2008, February 2009, May 2009, and August 2009. 

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: 

The City of Vienna public drinking water Well #3 is the primary water source for approximately 628 residents, Well #1 is 

currently operating as an emergency standby and supplemental water supply well. The PDWB monitoring documents that 

levels of PCE have been increasing in Vienna Well #3 since 1997 and now exceed the MCL. 

 Response Activities (to date):

The City of Vienna has secured funding for an air stripper project to remove contamination from the water supply. 

 Need for NPL Listing:

The State of Missouri referred the site to EPA. Other federal and state cleanup programs were evaluated, but were not 

viable at this time. EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the State. 

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change 

as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these 

substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet 

at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS DANIELS,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 09-270 TEH (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

A recent en banc decision from the Ninth Circuit, Hayward

v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. April 22, 2010)

(en banc), addressed important issues relating to federal habeas

review of BPH decisions denying parole to California state

prisoners. As such, the Court will provide each party an

opportunity to submit a supplemental brief (not to exceed ten (10)

pages in length) explaining his views of how the Hayward en banc

decision applies to the facts presented in Petitioner’s challenge to

BPH’s decision denying him parole. 

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-00270-TEH Document 20 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

The Court sets the following schedule:

1. No later than July 2, 2010, Respondent must file and

serve any supplemental brief applying Hayward to the facts presented

in Petitioner’s case. 

2. No later than July 30, 2010, Petitioner must file and

serve any supplemental brief applying Hayward to the facts presented

in his case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 06/10/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.09\Daniels-09-270-hayward briefing.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-00270-TEH Document 20 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,John W. Elias, Chief Executive Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:             August 11, 2008 | /s/ John W. Elias       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                                                                                                | John W. Elias           |
|                                                                                                | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Esther L. Mercer, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

Motion granted to extent that appeal may be prosecuted on one copy of transcript, five typewritten copies of judgment roll and five typewritten copies of brief, and otherwise denied.
**			Return to Naval Historical Center home pageReturn to Navy Museum page
**DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER						805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD						WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060**
To the Ends of the Earth and Beyond**

TO THE TEACHER

To the Ends of the Earth and Beyond is a curriculum-based program and Navy Museum tour focusing on the role of the United States Navy in exploration and diplomacy throughout history. In order for your students to have a successful experience at the Museum we encourage you to use as many of the activities in this packet as possible. This packet is divided into four sections (Navigation, To the Ends of the Poles, Commodore Perry and Japan, and Undersea Exploration)and contains activities that develop skills in writing, map reading, researching, critical thinking, and creative expression, while providing a historical look at important naval accomplishments.

To the Ends of the Earth and Beyond is most appropriate for students in grades 4 through 8. We hope your students will incorporate what they have learned from these materials with exhibits at The Navy Museum for a more fulfilling educational experience.

If you have any suggestions about this program or any other comments, please telephone the Education Department at (202) 433-6826 or (202) 433-4995.

INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET:

| Navigation                               | Commodore Perry and Japan             |
|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Biography: Matthew Fontaine Maury        | Biography: Matthew C. Perry           |
| Research and Report                      | Vocabulary                            |
| Vocabulary                               | Japanese Class System                 |
| Word search                              | Perry's Longitude and Latitude        |
| Charting the Seas-Latitude and Longitude | Guess Who? Activity                   |
| Longitude Activities                     | It's the Thought that Counts Activity |
| Other Activities                         | Discussion Questions                  |
||
||
| Background Information                   | Background information                |
| Biography: Finn Ronne                    | Biography: Robert Ballard             |
| Polar Opposites                          | Undersea Vocabulary                   |
| Polar Projects Questions and Activities  | Questions and Activities              |
| Polar Journals                           | Challenges Undersea                   |
| Polar Time Line                          | Aquanauts and Sea Labs                |
| Antarctic Treaty System                  |

**Back to Teacher Resource Page**

----

*13 November 2002*
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2679 

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling 

effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State 

and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants 

may seek damages and attorney’s fees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SODREL, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. PITTS, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. 

OTTER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. 

SMITH of Texas, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. POE, and Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to 

eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials 

that results from the threat that potential litigants may 

seek damages and attorney’s fees. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Expression of 

5 Religion Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2679 IH 

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST 

2 STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS. 

3 (a) CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS.— 

4 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States 

5 (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before the first sentence; 

7 and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this 

10 section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a 

11 prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment 

12 of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.’’. 

13 (b) ATTORNEYS FEES.—Section 722(b) of the Re14 vised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) 

15 is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘However, 

16 no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with re17 spect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nine18 teen hundred and seventy nine.’’. 

Æ
### §6507. Authorization of appropriations; Federal financial assistance for increased municipal services and facilities in communities located on or near reserve resulting from authorized exploration and study activities

(a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

(b) If the Secretary of the Interior determines that there is an immediate and substantial increase in the need for municipal services and facilities in communities located on or near the reserve as a direct result of the exploration and study activities authorized by this chapter and that an unfair and excessive financial burden will be incurred by such communities as a result of the increased need for such services and facilities, then he is authorized to assist such communities in meeting the costs of providing increased municipal services and facilities. The Secretary of the Interior shall carry out the provisions of this section through existing Federal programs and he shall consult with the heads of the departments or agencies of the Federal Government concerned with the type of services and facilities for which financial assistance is being made available.

(Pub. L. 94–258, title I, §108, formerly §107, Apr. 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 306; renumbered §108, Pub. L. 109–58, title III, §347(a)(1), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 704.)
#### In the Matter of William A. Kenna, Petitioner, v Gordon M. Ambach, as Commissioner of Education, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding initiated in this court, pursuant to section 6510 of the Education Law, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education revoking petitioner’s license to practice as a physician. The petitioner was found guilty of professional misconduct in that he practiced his profession fraudulently and committed "unprofessional conduct” (Education Law, § 6509, subds [1], [9]). The hearing panel found that petitioner had prescribed very large quantities of the drugs Tuinal and Doriden to five different persons whom he knew to be drug addicts and that he had prescribed these drugs not because he thought them useful in treating the addicts but because the addicts demanded these particular drugs. The only issue raised by petitioner is whether the penalty imposed, revocation of his license to practice medicine, is excessively harsh. Although the petitioner’s improper actions apparently were not done for venal motive and his prior professional record is unblemished, we are constrained to let stand this harsh penalty. The entire system *1092for controlling dangerous drugs is based on the assumption that physicians will exercise their prescription-writing power to treat patients and not to supply drugs to addicts. Even where the drugs are prescribed out of sympathy for the addict, it is within the competence of the Regents to severely penalize the abuse of the prescription power *(Matter of Pannone*v *New York State Educ. Dept.,*54 AD2d 1014). In *Pannone*the physician prescribed barbiturates for a widow after the death of her husband. The widow, who had cared for her cancer-stricken husband, apparently had become addicted to the drugs prescribed for him. This court upheld the two-year license suspension, one year of which was stayed by the Regents. In the case at bar the petitioner was guilty of much more serious abuse of his power to prescribe dangerous drugs. At least five different addicts, not regular patients of the petitioner, were given prescriptions for very substantial amounts of dangerous drugs. In light of the limited review this court has over the propriety of the penalty imposed in these matters (see *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 234), the determination must be confirmed and the petition dismissed. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.
§ 1509.605 Award. *Award* means an award of financial assistance by the African Development Foundation or other Federal agency directly to a recipient. ( a ) The term award includes: ( 1 ) A Federal grant or cooperative agreement, in the form of money or property in lieu of money.
( 2 ) A block grant or a grant in an entitlement program, whether or not the grant is exempted from coverage under the Governmentwide rule [Agency-specific CFR citation] that implements OMB Circular A-102 (for availability, see 5 CFR 1310.3) and specifies uniform administrative requirements.
( b ) The term award does not include: ( 1 ) Technical assistance that provides services instead of money.
( 2 ) Loans.
( 3 ) Loan guarantees.
( 4 ) Interest subsidies.
( 5 ) Insurance.
( 6 ) Direct appropriations.
( 7 ) Veterans' benefits to individuals (*i.e.*, any benefit to veterans, their families, or survivors by virtue of the service of a veteran in the Armed Forces of the United States).
( c ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(2) of this section, this paragraph is not applicable for ADF.
#### § 235.7 Fiscal Agent obligations.

Failure of the Fiscal Agent to perform any of its obligations pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall not impair any Noteholder's rights under the Guarantee, but may be the subject of action for damages against the Fiscal Agent by USAID as a result of such failure or neglect. A Noteholder may appoint the Fiscal Agent to make demand for payment on its behalf under the Guarantee.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 4, 2018

No. 04-18-00327-CR

Jim Garcia LONGORIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR7801

Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due August 13, 2018. Neither an appellant’s brief nor a 

motion for an extension of time was timely filed. Instead, this court issued a letter notifying 

counsel that the brief was late and giving counsel 10 days to respond. Eight days later, counsel 

filed a motion for an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief. This court granted the motion 

and ordered counsel for appellant, C. Wayne Huff, to file the brief by September 24, 2018. 

Neither the brief nor a motion for an extension was timely filed. 

Appellant has filed second a motion for an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief. 

We ORDER that the motion is granted in part and ORDER counsel for appellant, C. Wayne 

Huff, to file the appellant’s brief by November 12, 2018. Counsel is advised that no further 

extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary 

circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended 

in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be 

completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a 

heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court