alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TDCJ Offender Details P)fiHt~0\ Page 1of2

W|TEXAS; DEPARTMENT Of GRIMJNAL jJLijS&l&E E3 TDCJ Home New Offender Search

Offender Information Details

Return to Search list

SID Number:

TDCJ Number:

Name:

Race:

Gender:

DOB:

Maximum Sentence Date:

Current Facility:

Projected Release Date:

Parole Eligibility Date:

Offender Visitation Eligible:

01983856

01989549

MARTIN,BOBBY GENE

W

M

1950-11-09

LIFE SENTENCE

BYRD

LIFE SENTENCE

2044-08-01

NO

The offender is temporarily ineligible for visitation. Please call the offender's unit for any

additional information.

The visitation information is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day

on visitation days.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date:

Scheduled Release Type:

Scheduled Release Location:

Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Parole Review Information

Offense History:

Offense

Date Offense

Sentence

Date County r..p m« Sentence (YY- Case No. MM_DD)

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=01983856 5/26/2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CENTEX
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.'S JUNE 30, 1999, FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000818764
<NAME> CENTEX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          17,758
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,055
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    351,405
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           4,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                     332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 433,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   433,610
<SALES>                                        169,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,799
<CGS>                                          168,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                       572
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,151
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE D. MERCADO, aka Jorge David

Mercado, 

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 13-70662

Agency No. A094-181-976

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued December 11, 2015; Resubmitted August 9, 2016

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MARQUEZ,** District

Judge.

Petitioner Jorge David Mercado, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

FILED

AUG 18 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Rosemary Marquez, United States District Judge for

the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture. When Petitioner applied for asylum in 1995, he was a minor

child whose mother had been granted asylum. The child of an alien who is granted

asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 “may, if not otherwise eligible for asylum under

this section, be granted the same status as the alien if accompanying, or following

to join, such alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). The government failed to process

Petitioner’s asylum application until 2009, by which time Petitioner had reached

the age of 21 and married. We remand on an open record for the BIA to consider

whether Petitioner was entitled to derivative asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(3), or otherwise, when he applied for asylum in 1995, and whether he

should be granted asylum nunc pro tunc to that time. Because we remand for the

BIA to consider whether Petitioner should be granted asylum nunc pro tunc, we do

not reach the other issues raised in Petitioner’s Petition for Review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

2
# C_2020003EN.01000101.xml

| 7.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

6 January 2020

(2020/C 3/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1194 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,02 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4732 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85215 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5308 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0850 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8488 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,301 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 329,66 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2415 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7743 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,6900 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6119 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4525 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6978 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6788 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5110 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 308,83 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,9465 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8049 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4450 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 604,44 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5940 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,247 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,4047 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,744 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5461 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1418 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,5175 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1194

JPY

Japanese yen

121,02

DKK

Danish krone

7,4732

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85215

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5308

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0850

ISK

Iceland króna

137,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8488

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,301

HUF

Hungarian forint

329,66

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2415

RON

Romanian leu

4,7743

TRY

Turkish lira

6,6900

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6119

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4525

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6978

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6788

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5110

KRW

South Korean won

1 308,83

ZAR

South African rand

15,9465

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8049

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4450

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 604,44

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5940

PHP

Philippine peso

57,247

RUB

Russian rouble

69,4047

THB

Thai baht

33,744

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5461

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1418

INR

Indian rupee

80,5175

---

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

---
#### O’SHAUGHNESSY v. O’SHAUGHNESSY et al.

(Supreme Court, Trial Term, Fulton County.

February, 1906.)

Compromise and Settlement—Operation—Enforcement.

Where an action of ejectment was discontinued on a stipulation signed by the parties, by which one of the defendants was to have possession of the property, pay all taxes, and keep the property insured and in repair. during her life, and a deed was executed in accordance therewith, th& life tenant cannot terminate the agreement by consenting to a sale of the land for partition.

Action by Katharine B. O’Shaughnessy against John J. O’Shaughnessy and another. Complaint dismissed.

Matthew Dwyer (J. Keck, of counsel), for plaintiff.

John J. O’Shaughnessy (A. C. Haughton, of counsel), for defendant.

SPENCER, J.

The parties claim title to the real property sought to be partitioned. The conveyance is in the ordinary form, except that the habendum, signed by the grantees, declares the estate of each. The parties differ as to its intent and meaning. Prior to this action, the plaintiff, as lessee of the defendant Catherine, brought ejectment against the defendant John J. The action was discontinued upon a stipulation, signed by the parties, by which the defendant Catherine was to have possession of the property, pay all taxes, and keep the property insured and in repair during her life. This stipulation is still-in force. The property is so situated that an actual partition cannot be had. The life tenant consents to a sale. I am of the opinion that the action cannot be maintained. Catherine’s life estate is coupled with an agreement which runs during her life. She may not terminate the agreement by consenting to a sale. The other parties to the agreement have an interest in its performance by her, and one may not defeat such performánce as to the other by bringing partition. Such an action is inconsistent with the terms of the agreement and in violation thereof.

It follows that the complaint must be dismissed, but without costs. Ordered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 3333 HOLDING
CORPORATION'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000818762
<NAME> 3333 HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              40
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,032
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                             183
<DEPRECIATION>                                      34
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,622
<SALES>                                            757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   757
<CGS>                                            1,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (406)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (406)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (406)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### Edita G. Carrara, as Executrix of Charles Carrara, Deceased, Appellant, v. Joseph Carrara, Respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, in which defendant asserted a counterclaim for its cancellation, plaintiff appeals from a resettled judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 20, 1961 and entered August S, 1961 upon the decision of the court after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the complaint upon the merits and which directed the County Clerk to cancel the mortgage of record. Plaintiff also appeals from the original judgment of said court, dated June 12, 1961 and entered June 22, 1961. Resettled judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Appeal from the original judgment dismissed. This judgment was superseded by the resettled judgment. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
333.215-70 Contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.233-70, Choice of Law (Overseas), in solicitations and contracts when performance will be outside the United States, its possessions, and Puerto Rico, except as otherwise provided in a government-to-government agreement.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.233-71, Litigation and Claims, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, or labor-hour contract is contemplated (other than a contract for a commercial item).
**Exhibit 32.2 — ****Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of First Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”) onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael A. Carty, Secretary, Treasurer and CFO of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.This certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not beingfiled for any other purpose.   Date: March 12, 2008     /s/ Michael A. Carty                                   Michael A. Carty
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

The Higher Education Act requires that the Secretary consult with federal agency heads in order to receive recommendations regarding areas of national need for expertise in foreign languages and world regions.

Consultation with Federal Agencies on Areas of National Need

## Legislation

                - Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended
                - 20 USC Chapter 28 Subchapter VI  Part A Section 1125  and  Part D Section 1132-7

## Regulations

                - Code of Federal Regulations Title 34 (34 CFR)  Part 655  and  Part 660
                - Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) , Parts 75, 77, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99

IFLE Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

## FY 2023

Projects funded:  PDF (806K)

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### 37.113 Severance payments to foreign nationals.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Viray NAZARENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10064.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 16, 2007.

Filed Nov. 2, 2007.

*646Camil A. Skipper, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Alexandra Paradis Negin, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BRUNETTI, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Danny Viray Nazareno appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of counterfeiting found during a parole search of his girlfriend’s apartment. He contends that the searching officers did not have probable cause to believe that he lived in the apartment. He also argues that the fruits of the search should be suppressed because the officers did not know that he was on searchable parole at the time of the search and lacked a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. We reject both arguments and affirm.

As found by the district court, the mother of Nazareno’s girlfriend and the manager of the searched apartment both told the officers that Nazareno, or a man resembling Nazareno, “stayed” in the apartment. The district court’s decision to credit the statement of one officer and discount the statements of other witnesses was not clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Hubbard,*96 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir.1996). Those statements, in the context of the full record, gave the officers probable cause to believe that Nazareno lived in the searched apartment as required by *Motley v. Parks,*432 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), and *United States v. Howard,*447 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2006).

Prior to the search, the officers learned that Nazareno was on parole. This information allowed the officers to conduct a suspicionless search of the apartment. *See Moreno v. Baca,*431 F.3d 633, 638 (9th Cir.2005) and *Samson v. California,*547 U.S. 843, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 2196, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006). In any event, the search was also supported by reasonable suspicion. The officers had photographic evidence linking Nazareno to the theft of consumer electronics, which were likely to be present in his apartment. They therefore had “a particularized and objective basis” for suspecting that a search of Nazareno’s apartment would reveal evidence of a crime. *United States v. Morales,*252 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting *United States v. Thomas,*211 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir.2000)).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Who May Apply:** Under section 777(a)(3) of the HEA, an “eligible entity” is anIHE; a nonprofit organization; or a partnership of two or more IHEs ororganizations, with demonstrated expertise in:

- Supporting students with disabilities in postsecondary education;      Technical knowledge necessary for the dissemination of information inaccessible formats;     Working with diverse types of institutions of higher education, includingcommunity colleges; and     
- The subjects necessary to support students across the broad spectrum ofdisabilities.
Institutional Services
  Last Modified: 09/23/2021
37.602 Performance work statement. ( a ) A Performance work statement (PWS) may be prepared by the Government or result from a Statement of objectives (SOO) prepared by the Government where the offeror proposes the PWS.
( b ) Agencies shall, to the maximum extent practicable— ( 1 ) Describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either “how” the work is to be accomplished or the number of hours to be provided (see 11.002(a)(2) and 11.101);
( 2 ) Enable assessment of work performance against measurable performance standards;
( 3 ) Rely on the use of measurable performance standards and financial incentives in a competitive environment to encourage competitors to develop and institute innovative and cost-effective methods of performing the work.
( c ) Offerors use the SOO to develop the PWS; however, the SOO does not become part of the contract. The SOO shall, at a minimum, include— ( 1 ) Purpose;
( 2 ) Scope or mission;
( 3 ) Period and place of performance;
( 4 ) Background;
( 5 ) Performance objectives, *i.e.*, required results; and
( 6 ) Any operating constraints.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 30, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 30, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0162. CHARLES ROBERT SMITH v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

17B04742