alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 27, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00930-CR

ALICE ANNETTE STEELE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-45120-M

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On January 13, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

clerk’s and reporter’s records have not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant 

desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed 

counsel; (3) counsel made timely requests for preparation of the records; (4) Belinda Baraka is 

the court reporter who recorded the proceedings; (5) Ms. Baraka’s explanation for the delay in 

filing the record is her workload; (6) Ms. Baraka stated she could file the record within thirty 

days of the January 21, 2014 findings; and (7) the clerk’s record can be filed within thirty days of

the January 21, 2014 findings.

We received the clerk’s record on January 23, 2014.
We ORDER court reporter Belinda Baraka to file the reporter’s record by FEBRUARY 

20, 2014. No further extensions will be granted.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

Belinda Baraka, official court reporter, 194th Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all 

parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
#### New York State Thruway Authority, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 43807.)

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. Decision dated March 11, 1969 and order dated March 12, 1969 amended to provide that the judgment appealed from foe modified, on the law, in accordance with the memorandum decision and ease remitted to the Court of Claims for proceedings not inconsistent with the memorandum decision, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact have not been considered. The following question shall be certified as decisive of the correctness of our determination: Was the judgment of the 'Court of Claims in accord with the remittitur of the Court of Appeals ? Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Greenblott, JJ., concur.
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51012

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR FERNANDEZ-AGUILAR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-450-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Oscar Fernandez-Aguilar has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Fernandez-Aguilar has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to
No. 06-51012

2

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
§ 3560.503 Disposition of REO property. ( a ) Preference will be given to offers from bidders who are determined eligible by the Agency to purchase REO property designated to be sold as program property. It is the Agency's priority that property previously operated as program property prior to becoming REO inventory property be sold as program property. However, REO property may be sold under whatever Agency program is most appropriate for the property and the community needs regardless of the program under which the property was originally financed or whether the property was being used to secure loans under more than one Agency program.
( b ) When the Agency determines that the REO property to be sold is not decent, safe, and sanitary and/or does not meet cost effective energy conservation standards, it will disclose the basis for this determination to prospective purchasers. The deed by which such an REO property is conveyed will contain a covenant restricting it from residential use until it is decent, safe, and sanitary, and meets the Agency's cost effective conservation standards. The Agency will also notify any potential purchaser of any known lead based paint hazards.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6779

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANTWAN RICARDO CONSTANT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:06

- cr - 00161

- D

- 2 )

Submitted : October 31 , 2023 Decided: November 3, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Antwan Ricardo Constant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6779 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Antwan Ricardo Constant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. On appeal, Constant challenges only the denial of his motion for compassionate release. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is l imited to issues preserved in that brief.”)

. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Constant’s motion. See United States v. Malone , 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s judgment. United States v. Constant , No. 5:06

- cr - 00161

- D

- 2 (E.D.N.C. July 21, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this co urt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6779 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 221 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 221

                  For the relief of Luay Lufti Hadad.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 31, 2005

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Luay Lufti Hadad.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LUAY LUFTI HADAD.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Luay Lufti Hadad shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of that Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Luay Lufti Hadad enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Luay 
Lufti Hadad shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully 
and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of enactment of this 
Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Luay Lufti Hadad, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
birth of Luay Lufti Hadad under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of birth of Luay 
Lufti Hadad under section 202(e) of that Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### SIMONSON, Respondent, v. MENDHAM et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

September 28, 1906.)

Action by Arthur F. Simonson against Louis P. Mendham and Maurice B. Mendham.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Amendment No. 4 to Duke Energy Executive Cash Balance Plan



 Exhibit 10-7.4 
  
 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE CASH BALANCE
PLAN 
 (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1999) 
  
 AMENDMENT 4 
  
 Pursuant to Section 8 of the Duke Energy Corporation Executive Cash Balance Plan, as amended (“Plan”), Duke Energy Corporation
(“Corporation”) hereby amends the Plan, effective December 31, 2004, in the following respects: 
  
 “As part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Section 409A has been added to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Code Section 409A
imposes new requirements upon deferred compensation plans that must be satisfied in order that amounts deferred will not be currently included in taxable income. Code Section 409A, by its terms, does not apply to “amounts deferred” before
January 1, 2005, and earnings thereon, under a deferred compensation plan that is not “materially modified” after October 3, 2004. 
  
 Effective immediately before January 1, 2005, the Plan is divided into two separate deferred compensation plans, one of which shall be named Plan
“I” and the other shall be named Plan “II”. Plan I shall include only “amounts deferred” before January 1 , 2005, and earnings thereon, and such deferred compensation shall be subject to the provisions of the Plan as in
effect on October 3, 2004, and as Plan I is subsequently amended or otherwise changed, except as would result in such deferred compensation becoming subject to Code Section 409A. 
  
 Plan II shall include only “amounts deferred” after December 31, 2004, and earnings thereon, and such deferred
compensation shall be subject to the provisions of the Plan as in effect after December 31, 2004, including subsequent amendments or other changes to Plan II as may be approved by the Duke Energy Director — Executive Compensation & Benefits
for the purpose of enabling Plan II deferred compensation to satisfy the requirements imposed by Code Section 409A. Such requirements include the following: restrictions as to when a new participant may make an initial deferral election;
restrictions as to the earliest date a participant may receive distribution; prohibition against acceleration of distribution; and restrictions on a participant’s ability to make a subsequent election that delays distribution or changes the
form of distribution. 
  
 This Amendment is intended to result in
Plan I deferred compensation not being subject to Code Section 409A and to result in Plan II deferred compensation 

  









 
satisfying the requirements imposed by Code Section 409A, and this Amendment shall be interpreted and implemented to carry out such intention. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment to the Plan is executed on behalf of the
Corporation this 27 day of October, 2004. 
  

			
	 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	/s/    CHRISTOPHER C.
ROLFE        
	 Its:
	 	Vice President
	 	 	Human Resources
98-1487.

#### State v. Gross.

Huron App. No. H-97-049. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a *1433conflict exists; *sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 97-1985, *State v. Cook,*Allen App. No. 1-97-21; briefing schedule stayed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Troy Sneed, Petitioner, v Warden Bailey, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 541]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Kings County Indictment No. 7744/05.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; *see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Jack Dreier, Doing Business as Bubs Daddy Ice Cream, et al., Respondents, v John Jay LaValle et al., Appellants.

[815 NYS2d 661]

*791In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul two resolutions of the Brookhaven Town Board which awarded franchise agreements for the operation of concession facilities at the Holtsville Pool and Centereach Pool to Dover Gourmet Corp, John Jay LaValle, Supervisor of the Town of Brookhaven, the Brookhaven Town Board, and Anthony DiMaio, Town of Brookhaven Director of Purchasing, appeal, and Dover Gourmet Corp, separately appeals, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated May 19, 2005, which granted the petition and annulled the resolutions.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, and the resolutions are reinstated.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the determination of a municipality, “it is well settled that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it reviews *unless*the decision under review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion” *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 232 [1974]). The determination of the Brookhaven Town Board (hereinafter the Board) to award two concession contracts for the operation of concession facilities at town pools to the respondent Dover Gourmet Corp. (hereinafter Dover) must be upheld so long as it is in accord with the law and has a rational basis *(see Matter of Service Bus Co., Inc. v City School Dist. of Yonkers,*20 AD3d 483 [2005]; *Matter of Value Mgt. Consultants v County of Nassau,*274 AD2d 588 [2000]). The record supports the Board’s determination that Dover’s bid, which included a revenue-sharing arrangement and provided for extensive improvements to the facilities that would become the property of the Town, was superior to all other bids. Further, contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the competitive bidding provisions of the Brookhaven Town Code (hereinafter the Town Code) are inapplicable, since the concession contracts are, in essence, license agreements, and do not involve expenditure of public funds for goods or services (Town Code § 7-2; *see Matter of Citiwide News v New York City Tr. Auth.,*62 NY2d 464, 470-473 [1984]; *Matter of B.C.I. Indus. Catering v Town of Huntington,*250 AD2d 675, 676 [1998]). Since the petitioner did not demonstrate that the Board’s determination was arbitrary and capricious, and there was no violation of the Town Code, the petition should have been denied and the proceeding dismissed. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ, concur.
§ 28.56 Form A and Form D memorandum. ( a ) When a classification and/or comparison has been made of any samples submitted to a Classing Office direct from a public warehouse, the results of such classification and/or comparison may be stated in a Form A memorandum.
( b ) When a classification and/or comparison has been made of any samples submitted by the owner of the cotton or the owner's agent, the results of such classification and/or comparison may be stated in a Form D memorandum.
( c ) Form A and Form D memoranda shall not be deemed to be final certificates within the meaning of section 4 of the Act (42 Stat. 1517; 7 U.S.C. 54).
[22 FR 10930, Dec. 28, 1957, as amended at 52 FR 30882, Aug. 18, 1987]
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
#### In the Matter of Alton R. Holmes, an Attorney, Respondent, New York State Bar Association, Petitioner.

Third Department,

April 24, 1969.

*25
      *Frederick C. Stimmel (David A. Hendler*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Alton R. Holmes,*respondent in person *(Arnold C. Peer,*with him on the motion).

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to practice June 21, 1938 in the Third Judicial Department.

The charges are: (1) conversion of $1,647.90 in escrow funds belonging to a client; (2) failure to record the deed and satisfy liens in the real property transaction involved in Charge 1; (3) conversion of $316.20 in trust funds, respondent being the trustee; (4) misfeasance as trustee for failure to distribute trust income to the income beneficiary; (5) conversion of $2,300 from two estates; and (6) conversion of $3,399.70 in proceeds from the sale of real property.

The above charges were fully sustained by the evidence and, accordingly, the Referee’s report must be confirmed. The respondent should be disbarred.

Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.
#### § 29.2296 Side.

A certain phase of quality, color, or length as contrasted with some other phase of quality, color, or length; or any peculiar characteristics of tobacco.

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
# LI2021012EN.01000301.xml

| 15.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | LI 12/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

LI 12/3

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2021/30

of 15 January 2021

implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), and in particular Article 30(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 31 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/255/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 31 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

| (2) | In view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, and considering his recent appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Faisal MEKDAD should be added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, and considering his recent appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Faisal MEKDAD should be added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

| (3) | Decision 2013/255/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2013/255/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 15 January 2021.

For the Council

The President

A.P. ZACARIAS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

1

---

ANNEX

The following entry is added to the list set out in Section A (Persons) of Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP:

| | Name | Identifying information | Reasons | Date of listing |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘311. | Faisal MEKDAD
  (a.k.a. Fayçal, al-Mekdad, Meqdad, al-Meqdad)
  (فيصل المقداد) | Date of birth: 1954;
  Place of birth: Ghasm, Daraa Governorate, Syria;
  Gender: Male | Minister of Foreign Affairs. Appointed in November 2020.
  As a Government Minister, shares responsibility for the Syrian regime’s violent repression against the civilian population. | 15.1.2021’ |

Name

Identifying information

Reasons

Date of listing

‘311.

Faisal MEKDAD

(a.k.a. Fayçal, al-Mekdad, Meqdad, al-Meqdad)

(فيصل المقداد)

Date of birth: 1954;

Place of birth: Ghasm, Daraa Governorate, Syria;

Gender: Male

Minister of Foreign Affairs. Appointed in November 2020.

As a Government Minister, shares responsibility for the Syrian regime’s violent repression against the civilian population.

15.1.2021’

---
#### § 29.3619 Rule 18.

Any lot of tobacco of the B, C, or X groups shall be classified as “mixed” and designated by the color symbol “M” when it is not green but contains (a) over 30 percent of colors distinctly different from the major color or (b) over 30 percent of a combination of variegated and colors distinctly different from the major color mingled together.

[51 FR 40408, Nov. 7, 1986]
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      ss.1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Datascension Inc. (the
      "Company")on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
      theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
      "Report")"Report"), I, David Lieberman, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      the
      best of my knowledge:





(1)
      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.


/s/
                David LiebermanDAVID
                  LIEBERMAN
                Chief
                  Acounting OfficerDated:
                March 28, 2008