alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ-UR ENA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 16-50237

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-02442-JM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y T. M ille r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 16, 2018 ** B e fore : REINHAR

DT, TR OTT, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. Jua n Antonio Gonz a l e z -Ure na a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 37-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for atte m pte d re e ntry

of a re m ove d a lie n, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JAN 22 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Gonz a le z -Ure na argue s tha t his prior c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 215 is not a

c rim e of viole nc e and, the re fore , the distric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing a 16-le v e l e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015). This c la im is fore c lose d . S

e e Unite d State

s v . Ve lasque

z -Bosque , 601 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha t § 215 is c ate goric a lly

a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” for purpose s of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2). As Gonz a le z -Ure n a

a c knowle dge s, his a

rgum e nt tha

t De sc amps v . Unite d State s , 133 S. C t. 2276 (2013), is c le arly irre c o nc ila

ble with Ve lasque

z -Bosque or with thec a se on whic h it re lie s, Unite d State s v . Be c e rril-Lope

z , 541 F.3d 881, 893 (9th C ir. 2008), is al s o fore c lose d. Se eUnite d State s v . C hav e z-C ue v as , 862 F.3d 729, 739-40 (9th C ir. 2017) (c o nc luding tha t De sc a mps “ did not im

plie dly a brogate Be c e rril-Lope

z ” ). W e de c line Gonz a le z -Ure na ’ s invita tion to re v isit theholdings of Ve lasquezBosque and Be c e r

ril-Lope z be c a use his c ha lle nge to thoseholdings re lie s on “ no c ha nge in there le va

nt sta tute s or re gula

tions, nor in a

ny gove rning a

uthority .” Unite d State s v . Ramos-Me dina , 706 F.3d 932, 938 (9th C ir. 2013). “Abse nt suc h a c ha nge , only an e n ba nc pa ne l of our c ourt m a

y ove rrule or re vise the binding pre c e de nt e sta

b l ishe d by

a publishe d opinion.” Id. at 938-39. AFFIRM E D. 1 6 - 5 0 2 3 7 2
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOT A

2020 ND 2 44

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Warren James Wilkinson, Sr., Defendant and Appellant

No. 20200117

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Andrew C. Eyre, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, N

. D ., for plaintiff and appellee; submit ted on brief.

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, N

. D ., for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.1 State v. Wilkinson No. 20200117
Per Curiam

. [¶1] Warren Wilkinson appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of gross sexual imposition. He argues the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. After reviewing the record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the verdict. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.A pp.P. 35.1(a)(3).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
MEMORANDUM

Date: January 9, 2024

To: U.S. Department of Education

From: Robyn Smith and Sophie Laing, Negotiators for Legal Assistance Organizations

Re: Issue Paper 1 – Information/Data Request

During yesterday’s discussion regarding the Department’s proposed modifications to 34 C.F.R. § 668.167, 

we raised concerns regarding low-income students’ inability to repay Pell Grant overpayments after they 

are transferred for collection from the school to the Department. The federal regulations do not currently 

provide students with any affordable repayment options so that they can reestablish federal financial aid 

eligibility and finish their programs. In response, the Department stated that it allows the third-party 

contractor that collects Pell Grant overpayments to enter into repayment agreements with students. It also 

stated that when a student does so, the Department renews their financial aid eligibility.

We request the following information about the options offered to students with Pell Grant overpayments. 

We would welcome receiving responses to these questions on a rolling basis as the information becomes 

available, and are happy to work with the Department to restructure the questions if doing so would 

ensure the information becomes available sooner.

1. Which contractor collects Pell Grant overpayments on behalf of the Department?

2. What specific instructions and/or guidelines has the Department provided to this contractor 

for the negotiation of repayment plans? Please provide copy of any instructions or guidelines. 

In addition, please provide responses to the following:

• How are the repayment plans offered to students calculated?

• Is the contractor allowed to enter into $0 (zero dollar) repayment plans with students? If 

so, in what circumstances?

• Does the Department reestablish a student’s eligibility for financial aid once they enter 

into a repayment plan?

• How does the Department advise students about repayment plan options? Is the 

contractor required to advise borrowers about/offer students a repayment plan before 

demanding payment of the entire amount?

• How soon after the overpayment is transferred for collection to the Department is the 

contractor required to start collection and/or offer a repayment plan?

3. How many students were assessed for a Pell Grant overpayment in the most recent two 

complete award years?

4. What was the average Pell Grant overpayment amount?

5. For this period, what percentage of Pell Grant overpayments were repaid or are in repayment 

through repayment plans?

a. Of these repayment plans, what was the average monthly repayment amount?
Information/Data Request Issue 1 – Cash Management

January 9, 2024

Page 2 of 2 

2

b. On average, what period of time elapsed between the date the overpayment was 

transferred for collection to the Department to the date that the student in such cases 

started making payments?

6. What happens when a student on a repayment plan misses a monthly payment?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Anna Haney

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02729

Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, April 16, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer: Status hearing set for

4/27/2012 at 09:00 AM, courtroom 2119. Mailed notice(etv, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-02729 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:250
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET ON FORM 10K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1998
AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS FILED ON FORM 10-K FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,249
<SECURITIES>                                    25,185
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                       395
<INVENTORY>                                        967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,796
<PP&E>                                          13,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,999
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,390
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,472
<SALES>                                         41,788
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,788
<CGS>                                           16,233
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   340
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,051)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,051)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,051)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.97)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017145EN.01000101.xml

| 9.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7936 — Petrol/Geoplin)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 145/01)

On 10 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M7936. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M7936. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2018345EN.01000301.xml

| 27.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

26 September 2018

(2018/C 345/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1737 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4584 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89080 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3763 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1369 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 128,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5465 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,605 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 323,85 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2826 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6611 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 7,1820 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6202 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5214 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1676 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7668 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6027 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 309,19 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,7827 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0685 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4275 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 532,20 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8603 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,728 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,4075 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,098 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,7985 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,3375 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,2190 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1737

JPY

Japanese yen

132,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4584

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89080

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3763

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1369

ISK

Iceland króna

128,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5465

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,605

HUF

Hungarian forint

323,85

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2826

RON

Romanian leu

4,6611

TRY

Turkish lira

7,1820

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6202

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5214

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1676

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7668

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6027

KRW

South Korean won

1 309,19

ZAR

South African rand

16,7827

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0685

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4275

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 532,20

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8603

PHP

Philippine peso

63,728

RUB

Russian rouble

77,4075

THB

Thai baht

38,098

BRL

Brazilian real

4,7985

MXN

Mexican peso

22,3375

INR

Indian rupee

85,2190

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 23 (Friday, February 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8335-8336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02437]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 54

[GN Docket No. 20-32; Report No. 3165; FRS 17451]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petitions for Reconsideration; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a date that appeared in the Federal 
Register on January 22, 2021. That Federal Register document, which 
invited comment on the Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) filed 
in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding, incorrectly listed the date 
by which replies to an opposition to the Petitions must be filed as 
February 16, 2021, rather than February 18, 2021.

DATES: Effective on February 5, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Barrish, Office of Economics 
and Analytics, Auctions Division, (202) 418-0660, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93c5f2fff6e1faf6bdd1f2e1e1fae0fbd3f5f0f0bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d5b6c61687f6468234f6c7f7f647e654d6b6e6e236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document corrects the date by which by 
which replies to an opposition to the Petitions for Reconsideration 
(Petitions) filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding must be 
filed, published at 86 FR 6611 on January 22, 2021, which incorrectly 
listed that date as February 16, 2021, rather than February 18, 2021.
    In FR Doc. 2021-00464 appearing on page 6611 in the Federal 
Register of Friday, January 22, 2021, the following corrections are 
made:
    1. On page 6611, in the second column, in the DATES section, the 
statement ``Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before 
February 16, 2021'' is corrected to read ``Replies to an opposition 
must be filed on or before February 18, 2021.''


[[Page 8336]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02437 Filed 2-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# 3feW5T *fc7-/£T 3*1-/5- $&-/$• t^f10mtS ELECTRONICRECORD yffmf^

COA # 06-14-00088-CR 

### Companioncases Samuel Deleon Garza v. The State 

### STYLE: of Texas OFFENSE: 22.01 

### COUNTY: Hunt TRIAL COURT: 196th District Court COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed DATE: 3/10/15 Publish: No TC CASE #: 28,996



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Samuel Deleon Garza v. The State of STYLE: Texas 

## PRO S£ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: PyW«? 3.^. Z&^ JUDGE: /22- CCA#: 

# iLk-tS TMO Zfh/S CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:. DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
#### Nannie Lumpkin et al., Respondents, v. Ætna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellant.

Order and judgment (one paper), entered on December *86119, 1963, vacating a stay of arbitration and directing the parties herein to proceed to arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and judgment granted in favor of the respondent-appellant dismissing the petition with no allowance for costs to either party by reason of the inadequate appendix and briefing by both parties. The claimants were injured when the automobile in which they were riding as passengers and owned by one Lindsay and insured by the defendant insurance company, collided with an automobile owned and operated by one Williams. On April 18, 1963 Mr. Justice Carnet temporarily stayed the arbitration demanded by the claimants pursuant to an uninsured automobile endorsement contained in defendant insurance company’s policy, pending a hearing to determine whether or not Williams’ automobile was uninsured. After a hearing held on May 6, 1963 the court vacated the stay and directed the parties to arbitrate holding that the Williams’ automobile was uninsured. The principal evidence introduced by claimants was a letter from Williams in reply to a letter from claimants’ attorney in which Williams stated that “ he had no insurance.” Although the lower court held that “ The evidence clearly demonstrates that the motorist in question was in fact uninsured,” our review of the record does not substantiate that finding. The letter which was undoubtedly sent by Williams does not make it clear that the insurance therein referred to was automobile liability insurance nor does it state that no such insurance was in effect on the date of the accident. In addition, the letter was inadmissible as hearsay *(Matter of Rosen [MYA1C],*20 A D 2d 704) and without this evidence the finding of the trial court was untenable. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Tálente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00853-CR

Cassandra CRIOYOS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR9696

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

SIGNED January 8, 2014.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<CIK>   0000018734
<NAME>  CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
<SUBSIDIARY>
<NUMBER> 003
<NAME> CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                3,247,991
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  3,163
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                     162,706
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     4,275
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           1,315,440
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           4,733,575
<COMMON>                                   168,888
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  405,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                        730,419
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>           1,304,307
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                163,204
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                     1,251,056
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                         300,635
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>              125,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>           1,589,373
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>            4,733,575
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  666,060
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                        40,320
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 499,079
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 539,399
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                    126,661
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           2,147
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>             128,808
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    59,873
<NET-INCOME>                                68,935
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  3,547
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               65,388
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    74,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                   44,427
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                     147,455
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


              STATEMENT OF CONTROLLER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

     Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Joel H. Lurquin, the Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of
Donlar Biosyntrex Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

1.   The Company's Form 10-KSB Annual Report for the period ended December 31,
     2001 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     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.


Dated: December 9, 2002                      /s/ JOEL H. LURQUIN
                                             -------------------------------
                                             Joel H. Lurquin, Controller and
                                             Chief Accounting Officer