alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Bracketing mid-pliocene sea surface temperature: maximum and minimum possible warming

By: Harry Dowsett

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds114

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract
#### § 300.9 Office.

The Association directs its operations from its office located at 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC 20410.
### §1637. Use of protraction diagrams

With the agreement of the party to whom a patent is to be issued under this chapter, or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.], the Secretary, in his discretion, may base such patent on protraction diagrams in lieu of field surveys. Any person or corporation receiving a patent under this chapter or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] on the basis of a protraction diagram shall receive any gain or bear any loss of acreage due to errors, if any, in such protraction diagram.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title IX, §909, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2447.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 92–203, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688, which is classified generally to chapter 33 (§1601 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title and Tables.
#### In the Matter of Jerry Lee Brammer, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

April 24, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*James D. Porter, Jr.,*for petitioner.

No appearance on behalf of respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Department on June 29, 1964.

On January 20, 1978, he was convicted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, of grand larceny in the second degree, a class D felony (Penal Law, § 155.35), and falsifying business records in the first *133degree, a class E felony (Penal Law, § 175.10), and sentenced thereupon to one year on each conviction, said sentences to run consecutively.

Petitioner moves for an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys on the ground that by virtue of this conviction he has been automatically disbarred pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law. Respondent has failed to appear or answer the petition.

The petition should be granted. Conviction of a felony in a court of this State mandates automatic disbarment. *(Matter of Ginsberg,*1 NY2d 144.) Accordingly, the application to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law should be granted.

Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6483

CHARLES RICHARD RILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus A. D. MATHEWS, SR., Sheriff; EARL MULLINS,Internal Affairs; NANCY JUSTICE, Classification; TROY FISHER, Deputy Sheriff; W. LASSITER, Classification; ELLEN HOLT, Lieutenant; DEPUTY SHERIFF JESSIE; DEPUTY SHERIFF TABB; B. MALLORY, Deputy Sheriff; DEPUTY SHERIFF COLEY; RONALD REDFORD, Deputy Sheriff; DEPUTY SHERIFFHURT; UNKNOWN DEPUTIES, Deputy Sheriff; UNKNOWN MEDICAL PERSONNEL, Jail Medical; UNKNOWN CLASSIFICATION PERSONNEL, Classification, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Barry R. Poretz, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-94-AM) Submitted: October 29, 1999 Decided: December 20, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge over this civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 

### 2 Charles Richard Riley, Appellant Pro Se. William Kerfoot Lewis, BEALE, BALFOUR, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & PARKER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Charles Richard Riley appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint after a trial. * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Riley v. Mathews, No. CA-98-94-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 26, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
OF EXAS

Hon. SamD. Johnson opinion Ho. s-51 County Attomey Hill county Re: The feea wNch shouldbe Rillsboro, !Eexas paid a court appointed defenae attorneyunder Article 45&a,V.C.C.P.. when four separate felony causes against tha same defendantuere tried on Dear Sir: the same day.

You have requeakd' an opinion on the amount of fees to be paid an attorney appointed to represent a defendant ln four separate felony caseswhen all four cases.

were tried on the same day. Section 1 of Article *#a, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure,provides: "Wheneverthe Court shall appoint one or more counsel to defend any person or peraons pursuant to law in any felony case in thi8 State. each counsel may. at the 'discretion of thl!trial jMge be- paid a fee in the sum of Ten Dollars ($lOjper day for each day such appointedattorney is actually in trial court representing the person or persons he has been appointed to represent. Provided, further, that in all cases Wherein a bona fide appeal ir,

actuallyprosecuted to a final concli&Ion, each appointed counselmay be paid Twenty-fiveDollars ($25’)for Said appeal. The fee allowed counsel shall be paid by the countywherein such ttiial is held and such sum to be paid from county funds." (Emphasisadded)
It waa clearly the intentionof the Legislature In enactingArticle %&a that each counsel stay, at the disbretionof the trial judge,be paid the fee of $10 per day for each felony case. In otherwords compennationprovided in Article &%a is compensationfor each felony case tried 'byan attorney appointedby theHon. Sam D. Johnson,page 2 (S-51)

trial court. Since the trial judge directed that a fee of $10 be paid in each cause under the facts submitted we agree with your conclusion that the attorney involved in your request is entitled to receive $10 per case per day in each individualappointmentmade by the court. SUMcwiY Under the provisionsof Section 1 of Article 49&a,Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure,an attorney appointedby the trial judge to represent a defendant in, four separate felony cases is entitled, in the discretion of the trial judge,to be paid the sum of $10 perday for each felony case tried by him, i.e., four felony caBes lasting for a period of one day Forty ($40) Dollars.
Yours very truly,
APPROVED:
J. C. Davis, Jr. County Affairs Division JOHNBEN SHEPPERD Attorney General

Willis E. Gresham Reviewer Robert S. T'rotti First Assistant BeeF Assistant

JohnBen Shepperd Attorney General
JR:am
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from financial statements for the three month period ended
March 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,497
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,497
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,477
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,306
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,964
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,924)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,924)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 7029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3018]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2010 / 
Notices

[[Page 7029]]

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the South Dakota Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the regulations 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the 
South Dakota Advisory Committee will convene at 2 p.m. and adjourn at 4 
p.m. (CST) on Thursday, March 4, 2010 at the Minnehaha County 
Courthouse, 425 North Dakota Avenue, 5th Floor, Multipurpose Room, 
Sioux Falls, SD. The purpose of the meeting is for the committee to 
receive an orientation and an ethics training; discuss recent 
Commission and regional activities, discuss current civil rights issues 
in the state and plan future activities. The Committee will also be 
briefed by an attorney on civil rights issues affecting Native 
Americans in the state.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by April 4, 2010. The 
address is Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 
240, Denver, CO 80294. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who 
desire additional information should contact Malee Craft, Regional 
Director, at 303-866-1040 or by e-mail to: mcraft@usccr.gov. Records 
generated by this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and 
after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the 
above e-mail or street address.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, February 10, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-3018 Filed 2-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 14, 2024

No. 04

- 23

- 00263

- CR

EX PARTE Elwin Roberto ORTIZ LAGOS

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11126CR

Honorable Dennis Powell , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the court DISMISSES this appeal for

want of jurisdiction.

It is so ORDERED on August 14, 2024

.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 14th day of August, 2024

.

_____________________________ Luz Estrada , Chief Deputy Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2310

ELEANOR GAMBELLI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DIXTER HANDY;

NICHOLAS HUNTZINGER; STATE FARM MUTUAL

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, as

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Carrier,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-94-868-2)

Argued: May 9, 1996 Decided: June 14, 1996

Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: William David Breit, BREIT, DRESCHER & BREIT, P.C.,

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Anita K. Henry, Assistant United

States Attorney, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Norfolk,

Virginia; Lynn Ellen Watson, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, P.C.,

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Billie Hobbs, BREIT,

DRESCHER & BREIT, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas

C. Dawson, Jr., HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, P.C., Norfolk,

Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Eleanor Gambelli challenges the district court's

dismissal of her tort claim against the United States and against

two private individuals for injuries sustained in an automobile

accident that occurred when she reentered her car moments after a

prior accident. After the first accident, Corporal Edward

Williams, a naval police officer who happened to pass by, stopped

gratuitously -- even though he was outside his jurisdiction -- to

ensure that nobody was injured and that the local police had been

called. Because, she alleges, Corporal Williams did not foresee

that Gambelli might subsequently become involved in a second

accident, and secure the area accordingly, she sued the United

States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Additionally, she sued

the drivers of the two cars involved in the accidents, under

pendent party jurisdiction and, allegedly, under diversity.

The district court dismissed the claim against the United

States because Corporal Williams did not undertake any course of

action that would obligate him to prevent future accidents and

because, in any event, he was acting outside the scope of his

employment. Subsequently, and after an additional hearing devoted

solely to the matter, the district court dismissed the claims

against the individual drivers because, although discovery had

proceeded for several months, Gambelli had failed to produce any

probative evidence of diversity, which both drivers denied.

We have considered all of the arguments raised by the parties

in their briefs and at oral argument, and, for the reasons stated
4

in the two thorough opinions issued by the district court, we

affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

AFFIRMED
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA demonstrative model of a lunar base simulation on a personal computerThe initial demonstration model of a lunar base simulation is described. This initial model was developed on the personal computer level to demonstrate feasibility and technique before proceeding to a larger computer-based model. Lotus Symphony Version 1.1 software was used to base the demonstration model on an personal computer with an MS-DOS operating system. The personal computer-based model determined the applicability of lunar base modeling techniques developed at an LSPI/NASA workshop. In addition, the personnal computer-based demonstration model defined a modeling structure that could be employed on a larger, more comprehensive VAX-based lunar base simulation. Refinement of this personal computer model and the development of a VAX-based model is planned in the near future.Document ID19870009562Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMarch 15, 1985Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:171976NASA-CR-171976Accession Number87N18995Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG9-116Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870009562.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.46 Commitment issuance.

Upon approval of an application for insurance, a commitment shall be issued by the Commissioner setting forth the terms and conditions upon which the mortgage will be insured. The commitment term and any extension or reopening of an expired commitment shall be in accordance with standards established by the Commissioner.
§ 220.251 Cross-reference. ( a ) All of the provisions of subpart B, part 203 of this chapter covering mortgages insured under section 203 of the National Housing Act apply to mortgages covering 1- to 11-family dwellings insured under section 220 of the National Housing Act, except the following: Sec. 203.258 Substitute mortgagors. 203.259 Scope. 203.280 One-time MIP. 203.281 Calculation of one-time MIP. 203.282 Mortgagee's late charge and interest. 203.283 Refund of one-time MIP. 203.340 Conditions of special forbearance relief. 203.342 Recasting of mortgage. 203.343 Partial release, addition or substitution of security. 203.350 Assignment of defaulted mortgage—ingeneral. 203.350a Assignment of defaulted mortgage. 203.351 Application for insurance benefits and fiscal data. 203.353 Certification by mortgagee. 203.400 Method of payment. 203.402a Reimbursement for uncollected interest. 203.420 Nature of Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund. 203.421 Allocation of Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund income or loss. 203.422 Right and liability under Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund. 203.423 Distribution of distributive shares 203.424 Maximum amount of distributive shares. 203.425 Finality of determination. 203.438 Mortgages on Indian land insured pursuant to section 248 of the National Housing Act. 203.439 Mortgages on Hawaiian home lands insured pursuant to section 247 of the National Housing Act. 203.439a Mortgages on property in Allegany Reservation of Seneca Nation of Indians authorized by section 203(q) of the National Housing Act.
( b ) For the purposes of this subpart, all references in part 203 of this chapter to section 203 of the act shall be construed to refer to section 220 of the act, and all references to the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund shall be construed to refer to the General Insurance Fund.
[36 FR 24573, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 42 FR 29304, June 8, 1977; 48 FR 28807, June 23, 1983; 51 FR 21874, June 16, 1986; 52 FR 8069, Mar. 16, 1987; 52 FR 28470, July 30, 1987; 52 FR 48203, Dec. 21, 1987; 53 FR 9869, Mar. 28, 1988; 55 FR 34808, Aug. 24, 1990]
#### § 241.585 Prepayment privileges and prepayment charge.

The security instrument shall contain a provision permitting prepayment of the loan in whole or in part upon any interest payment date after giving to the lender 30 days advance written notice and it may contain a provision, with the approval of the Commissioner, for a reasonable charge in the event of prepayment. The borrower shall be permitted to prepay up to 15 percent of the original principal amount of the loan in any one calendar year without an additional charge. A provision for a charge in the event of prepayment may not be included in a loan of $200,000 or less.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41491

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN GONZABA SALINAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(C-01-CR-142-1)

-------------------- August 14, 2002

Before DAVIS, WIENER, AND EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Juan Gonzaba Salinas (“Salinas”) appeals

from his guilty plea conviction and sentence for possession of

marihuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(D).

Salinas argues that the district court erred in its

application of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 by counting two prior burglary

convictions separately, which increased his criminal history score

and resulted in the application of the career offender enhancement.

Salinas cannot make the requisite showing that the prior cases were2

consolidated. S ee United States v. Huskey

, 137 F.3d 283, 288 (5th

Cir. 1998). Salinas’ reliance on L aPorte v. Texas

, 840 S.W.2d 412

(Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc), is misplaced. S ee United States

v. Fitzhugh , 984 F.2d 143, 147 n.18 (5th Cir. 1993).

Salinas also argues that the district court erred when it

included special conditions of supervised release in its written

j udgment that were not orally pronounced at sentencing or

,

alternatively, that the district court erred by delegating to the

probation officer the authority to set the timing and amount of

drug/alcohol detection and treatment. Salinas concedes that this

argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Warden

,

291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2002).

Salinas next argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841, the statute under

which he was convicted, is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme

Court’s ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey

, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

Salinas concedes that this argument is foreclosed by our prior

ruling in United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.

2000), cert. denied

, 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). Because we cannot

overrule an earlier panel’s decision, we reject Salinas’ argument

with respect to these issues. S ee United States v. Short

, 181 F.3d

620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied

, 528 U.S. 1091 (2000);

United States v. Mathena , 23 F.3d 87, 91 (5th Cir. 1994)

.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Salinas’s conviction and

sentence.3 S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\01\01-41491.0.wpd

4/29/04 6:10 pm