alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsNOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-30       Genetic Effects of Strayingof Non-Native Hatchery Fish into       Natural Populations      Proceedings of the WorkshopJune 1-2, 1995Seattle, Washington       Edited byW. Stewart Grant      
National Marine Fisheries ServiceNorthwest Fisheries Science       CenterCoastal Zone and Estuarine Studies DivisionConservation       Biology Program2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097 

May 1997

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEWilliam M. Daley,       Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationD.       James Baker, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries ServiceRolland A.       Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
This item should be cited as follows:
W. Stewart Grant (editor). 1997. Genetic effects of straying of non-native fish hatchery fish into natural populations: proceedings of the workshop. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-30, 130p.

Reference in this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 
CONTENTS- Introduction.    Robin S. Waples    
- Definition of the Problem: Straying from Hatchery   Populations       - Straying     of Hatchery Origin Spring/Summer-run Chinook Salmon in the Grande Ronde     Basin.  Ed Crateau      
  - Straying     of Umatilla River Hatchery Origin Fall-run Chinook Salmon into the Snake     River.  Richard W. Carmichael      
  - Redress     of Indian Treaty Fishing Rights  Gary James      
  - Straying     and Genetic Differences Between Hatchery and Natural Populations.      Gary Graves      
  - Straying     and Gene Flow Between Hatchery and Natural Populations.  Steven     Leider      
  - Straying     of Hatchery Fish and Fitness of Natural Populations.  Bill Bakke 
- Evolutionary Biology       - Population     Differentiation and Evolutionary Processes.  Joseph Felsenstein      
  - Selection     and Variability in Natural Populations.  Dolph Schluter      
  - Inbreeding     Depression and Outbreeding Depression.  Michael Lynch 
- Salmon Biology       - Homing,     Straying, and Colonization.  Thomas Quinn      
  - Genetic     Population Structure.  Nils Ryman      
  - Local     Adaptation.  Eric Taylor 
- Conclusions   of Panel.  Ruth E. Withler      
Hardcopies of NOAA Technical Memoranda are available from:National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22167Telephone: (703)487-4650; fax: (703) 321-8547 Paper copies vary in price
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE TELLO

- RESENDIZ, AKA Jose

Resendiz Tello,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72587

Agency No. A088

- 894

- 044

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 21, 2019 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Jose Tello

- Resendiz , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.

We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’ s denial of Tello

- Resendiz’s motion

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 72587

to reopen because the new evidence he presented concerns similar hardship

grou nds previously relied upon to support his application for cancellation of

removal. See Garcia v. Holder , 621 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court’s

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s de nial of a motion to reopen is limited to cases in

which petitioner presents new evidence that “is so distinct from that considered

previously as to make the motion to reopen a request for new relief itself, rather

than for reconsideration of a prior denial ” (citation and in ternal quotation marks

omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51141

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS LEMUS-ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-1076-ALL-DB

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Lemus-Alvarez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Lemus-Alvarez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Lemus-Alvarez maintains that he
No. 03-51141

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Lemus-Alvarez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

**Washington****, DC 20549**

 

Form 10-K

(Mark One)

[X]   ANNUALREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

     

 

 

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Exchange Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (section229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, tothe best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or informationstatements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or anyamendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as ofthe last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter.  No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

 

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leroy Pierce, Appellant.

Judgment rendered October 9, 1961, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree with intent to commit the crime of rape and two counts of placing a -child in such a situation as likely to impair her morals, unanimously modified, on the law, -by vacating the conviction under count 2 (placing a child in such a situation as likely to impair her morals), and, as so modified, affirmed. The jury disagreed as to count 3 (exposure of person) which is alleged to have occurred at the same time and same place as the incident referred to in count 2. We hold defendant’s guilt on count 2 was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant was sentenced on the felony count as a second felony offender and sentence was suspended on each of the two misdemeanor counts. On this record we do not find the sentence imposed to be excessive. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-K
for the year ended  December 31, 1999 for  Hallwood  Energy  Corporation  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000319019
<NAME>                        Hallwood Energy Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         10,480
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,753
<PP&E>                                         766,957
<DEPRECIATION>                                 585,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          26,382
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    21,386
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     53,091
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,774
<SALES>                                        56,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               56,881
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,218
<INCOME-TAX>                                   338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,880
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,880
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .06




</TABLE>
S. Con. Res. 51 Agreed to November 27, 2018

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That in the enrollment of S. 140, an Act to amend the 

White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act 

of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in the WMAT Settlement 

Fund, the Secretary of the Senate shall amend the title so as 

to read: ‘‘A bill to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard, 

and for other purposes.’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Exhibit 10(ii)



                                 March 25, 2003


Citibank, N.A., as
Administrative Agent
Attention: Mr. J. Nicholas McKee
Global Power
388 Greenwich Street, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10013

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We refer to the (364-Day) Credit  Agreement,  dated as of July 31, 2002, as
amended (the "Credit  Agreement"),  among  Carolina  Power & Light Company d/b/a
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (the "Borrower"),  the lenders named therein and
Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent (the "Agent").  Unless otherwise defined
herein,  capitalized  terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Credit Agreement.

     Pursuant to Section  2.04(a) of the Credit  Agreement,  the Borrower hereby
provides  irrevocable  notice  to the Agent to  ratably  reduce  the  respective
Commitments  of the Lenders by an  aggregate  of  $120,000,000.  This  permanent
reduction of the total Commitments of the Lenders will become effective April 1,
2003.


                                          Very truly yours,

                                          CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
                                          d/b/a PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC.



                                          ------------------------------
                                                   Thomas R. Sullivan
                                                   Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             208
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   208
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          180,197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,930
<OTHER-SE>                                    (178,807)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,320
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (26,545)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (26,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (14,035)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (40,580)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.324)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.324)
        

</TABLE>
#### Andres Galban v. Penn Shipping Co., Inc., et al.

Application granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Mandalay Digital Group, Inc.; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: January 7, 2015 |  |  |  | /s/ Andrew Schleimer                                
|                      |  |  |  | Andrew Schleimer                                    
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                      |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of Leland Higgins, Petitioner, v City of Oneonta, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Otsego County) to review a determination of respondent, which dismissed petitioner from his position as a police sergeant with the Oneonta Police Department. Pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against petitioner, a police sergeant employed by respondent, charging him with 13 violations of respondent’s police code. Following a hearing, respondent adopted the findings of fact of the hearing officer’s recommendation and found petitioner guilty of seven charges and dismissed him from the police force. Petitioner was found guilty of physically abusing a person whom he had arrested; physically and verbally abusing a woman with whom he was having an affair; drinking intoxicating beverages while on duty and in uniform on August 31, 1975; being intoxicated while on duty and in uniform on August 31, 1975; drinking intoxicating beverages in the police department and the municipal building while on duty as a plainclothesman on or about July 28, 1976; sleeping while on duty on August 31, 1975; and leaving the scene of an accident in violation of subdivision 1 of section 600 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Petitioner contends that the evidence against him was contrived, unbelievable and incredible, and that the findings of fact of the hearing officer were contrary to the testimony. We find these contentions unpersuasive, and conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination. The testimony adduced at the disciplinary hearing raised credibility questions which respondent could properly resolve against petitioner. Further, despite petitioner’s vigorous attempts to discredit the witnesses against him, there was sufficient corroborating evidence to support the findings of fact. Lastly, we cannot say that the penalty of dismissal is shocking or disproportionate to the charges which petitioner was found guilty of *(Matter of Pell v Board of Edxic.,*34 NY2d 222). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.
Subject: comments from Sandra Kinney 

From : Chip Cameron 

Sent: 9/8/2013 5:57 PM 

To: Kolotos, John; Rory O'sullivan; Eileen Connor; Whitney Barkley; Margaret Reiter; Tom Tarantino; Kevin Jensen; Mohr, 

Rhonda (rmohr@ ); Warner, Jack; Justice, Della (KYOAG); Libby DeBlasio; Ted Daywalt; tkriger@ ; 

Helga Greenfield; rhiggs@ ; Richard Heath; Glen Gabert; Nassirian, Barmak; barbara.hoblitzell@ ; 

Jenny Rickard; tdalton@ ; Brian Jones; Raymond Testa; Marc Jerome; JBerkowitz@ ; 

Belle Wheelan Private; nharvison@ 

Cc: Macias, Wendy; Mahaffie, Lynn; charlie pou 

Subject: comments from Sandra Kinney 

Negotiators: 

Some thoughts from Sandra Kinney, State Higher Education Officers Community of Interest, on the material previously 

provided by Della Justice and Libby DeBlasio 

"Hello Chip. I've reviewed the comments by Della Justice and Libby DeBlasio regarding proposed definitions and had 

some major concerns. I agree with much of what they have stated, however, as someone who provides the data, there 

are some technical issues that create problems with the recommendations. 

Although I agree we need a definition and well-defined metrics for job placement, the following definition, "Job 

Placement means within 180 days of completion/graduation t he student has been employed for at least 13 weeks with 

the employer in a full-time paid position in the field or related field of study," will negatively impact some programs. 

Allied Health programs, especially nursing require that students take a Board of Nursing test. Depending on the term 

these students graduate and when the nursing board has scheduled board tests, it may often be close to 180 days when 

the student is able to work in field. 

Part (3) is also problematic at the institutional level. I am particularly concerned with this part of the proposed definition 

for job placement "completer/graduate attests in his/her own handwriting at the time of enrolling in the program and 

upon completion of the program." This forces undue burden for the institution at the collection level and provides 

additiona l challenges at the reporting level. Smaller institutions will be challenged to meet this requirement. 

Thanks to Della and Libby for beginning great dialogue on these definitions." 

1
S. Con. Res. 55 Agreed to December 3, 2018

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That in recognition of the long and distinguished service 

rendered to the Nation and to the world, by the late George Herbert 

Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States, his remains 

be permitted to lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol from 

December 3, 2018 until December 5, 2018, and the Architect of 

the Capitol, under the direction of the President pro tempore of 

the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall 

take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of that purpose. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### 211.271 Elimination of use of class I ozone-depleting substances.

See 223.107-4 for restrictions on contracting for ozone-depleting substances.

[70 FR 73150, Dec. 9, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 66284, Aug. 15, 2024]