alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
accounting practices and any other issues pertaining to his legal practice;

(5) provide quarterly reports to the State Bar regarding his trust account, including but not limited to, copies of his trust account statements; and (6) not be convicted of any crime with the exception of minor traffic infractions that do not involve alcohol or controlled substances. Finally, the agreement requires Rinato to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, excluding bar counsel and staff salaries, within 90 days after he receives a bill from the State Bar.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the guilty plea agreement should be approved. 

### See SCR 113(1). We hereby impose asix-month-and-one-day suspension to be served concurrently with the sixmonth suspension imposed in Docket No. 64956. 1 Additionally, if Rinato successfully petitions for reinstatement under SCR 116, he will be on probation for two years and must comply with all of the conditions in the plea agreement, as outlined above. Finally, Rinato shall pay the costs of

1 Rinato currently is suspended for failure to pay his State Bar membership dues. Similar to the suspension imposed in Docket No. 64956, the suspension imposed in this order is separate from and in addition to Rinato's dues suspension: the current suspensions for this matter and Docket No. 64956 shall not begin until Rinato has resolved his dues suspension. 

### See SCR 98(13) (describing procedure for reinstatement after dues suspension). We further note that Rinato has been suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements, and his right to reinstatement is conditioned upon full compliance with SCR 212(5) and SCR 213. 

### In re Continuing Legal Education, Docket No. 66070 (Order Granting Petition as to Certain Respondent Attorneys, January 29, 2015).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1047A Q/Mia

## Sear

Parraffuir ,J.

Gibbons

J. the disciplinary proceedings, excluding bar counsel and staff salaries, within 90 days of receipt of the State Bar's bill of costs. 

### See SCR 120.

It is so ORDERED. 

## dta,g;

Hardesty , C.J.

DOUGLAS and SAITTA, JJ., dissenting:

We would reject the conditional guilty plea agreement because the agreed-upon discipline is not sufficient.

Saitta
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Peter M. Rinato C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A 

### e
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50460

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Hector Reyes-Cardona, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CR-2829-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Hector Reyes-Cardona appeals his sentence of 21 months of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court 

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues 

that the recidivism enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 22, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50460 Document: 00515683046 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2020
No. 20-50460

2

unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable 

statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment 

nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is 

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he 

seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for 

summary affirmance, asserting that Reyes-Cardona’s argument is foreclosed.

The parties are correct that Reyes-Cardona’s assertion is foreclosed 

by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th 

Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 

2007). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th 

Cir. 1969), the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-50460 Document: 00515683046 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2020
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

December 1, 2022

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2022-1171

TREEHOUSE AVATAR LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

VALVE CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

Decided: November 30, 2022

Precedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following change:

On page 6, lines 34 and 36, “Zydus” is changed to 

“Zyda.”

On page 11, line 14, “Zydus” is changed to “Zyda.”

Case: 22-1171 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 12/01/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                       4,520,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,006,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                   214,618
<INVENTORY>                                  1,570,395
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,357,058
<PP&E>                                       1,750,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                 877,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,263,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,347,971
<BONDS>                                        100,061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,585,534
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,263,108
<SALES>                                      4,409,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,409,063
<CGS>                                        1,947,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,605,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                842,057
<INCOME-TAX>                                   337,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            505,057
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   505,057
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv717-ID

)

CAROL THORN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of defendants' motion to compel (Doc. # 75), filed August 30,

2007, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to

defendants' requests on or before September 11, 2007. 

DONE, this 5th day of September, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 78 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8412

ROBERT H. DIXON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution; NURSE PRESNELL, RN, Mountain View Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00473-GCM)

Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert H. Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Robert H. Dixon appeals the district court’s order

denying him leave to file an amended complaint after the action

had already been dismissed. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Dixon v. Mitchell , No.

1:08-cv-00473-GCM (W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2008). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 1010.102 Cross-references to employee ethical conduct standards, financial disclosure regulations, and other conduct rules.

Employees of DOE are subject to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635, the DOE regulation at 5 CFR part 3301 which supplements the executive branch-wide standards, the executive branch-wide financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634, the executive branch-wide financial interests regulations at 5 CFR part 2640, and the executive branch-wide employee responsibilities and conduct regulation at 5 CFR part 735.

[61 FR 35088, July 5, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 30111, June 3, 1998]
PART 38 –– FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE

CONTRACTING
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC )

FOSTER AGENCY, LLC, etc., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv735-MHT

) 

THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (doc. no.

20) is granted.

DONE, this the 6th day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 21 Filed 02/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 6, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00777

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

v.

Rahida Shavett SLACK, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 12, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 601338 Yolanda T. Huff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On March 5, 2020, appellant filed a motion requesting an abatement of this appeal until the appellate record is adequately supplemented. Appellant states it timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law after the trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss for violation of appellee’s right to speedy trial, but the trial court has not filed the requested findings and

conclusions. See State v. Cullen , 195 S.W.3d 696, 698

– 99 (Tex. 2006) (requiring findings and conclusions to be recorded). App ellant also states that it requested the preparation of a reporter’s record of its October 16, 2019 verbal request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the court reporter has been unable to locate that record.

We GRANT appellant’s motion, abat e the appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court.

We ORDER the trial court to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law and file them with

the trial court clerk by APRIL 6, 2020 . We further ORDER the trial court clerk to prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record with this court containing the findings of fact and conclusions

of law by APRIL 15, 2020 . Finally, we ORDER court reporter Irene Maldonado to prepare and

file by APRIL 6, 2020 either : (1) a reporter’s record of appellant’s October 16, 2019 verbal request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; or (2) written notice that the reporter’s record

is lost.

___________ ______________________ Beth Watkins , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of March, 2020

.

______________ _____________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 44 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 10 of 10
38°30"

ca 2° 2 °
2 M4 ve) U t
< MTR BRAY VAX Ne . ; SAWN"
rane y a \\"\a ‘9 —-o
Fg BROS INO DY cAN ae Ute <8
iy Nate  URRAK : NS Y \\ 1 =8
NOES WES : \N tin
( 9 O- Ay
\\ a ~<a

\
. NV

. 2

N 1) aN PO ti

A s WN | \ Na W

S QYs N X-O0EE a

: 5

SE " & 2

\ \\ § 8

ZZ
20°

% a
\ PSS N LS
SY NE = N S
Sy a SX iw Q At XK
)
SF oe OVEN a ey \ SS
Me AL ; a oi ( M \
q
. Nein, \
i) {Y aS 8 iv) § qe VS
\\ : h \ \ K NY
\ D
8
N
3 Vs . YY NY
; \ ;
° : WANs
ry q . Vi ° , W Gy . 7 A
y q } y) y 8 {8
} A \
\ ~
r ) ya 5 *} 09 K 8 \ 3
” KN oe Q ‘
: NS uy S : Ny 3 Ny
S)
.)
*) § ~ iS )
Sua Sik
Sa : i\) . \ \ Y
y } Ss N <a ~
\ 1 N 9 * Vee
San N ! . N
So 3 . So
0 > Ws \) ,
A
) \ 08 . é 0
Ws s
\\y 7
: ‘ \ DAD
PE OSACAT US Cire
PUN RESINS PF eg: vk cn
jo % a
Tk A TPONGL:| x N 8 8 S I \
~ N oh Pe i) ) .
< Seep: NEN te bs Ss N . <
POO g} so : 2 9 ‘ \ Oj
: WD Fano AD y )
ES . ° ‘y aS PRONE . NY 6, ; C2) y rip 4
Sn o s * i \ oN & 4 aN MIN \O
WAN} 5, S
t .y Sut eA ° ; 0. nN x x 0 a ooef )
OY 0 % S ee ‘ee : y = Sy ; me ig ” \
4° N ws) a) 0 ee o > ‘ I \ ‘gt g
cen Y \ ~ Vy? 6) t Y Y . \ N ‘ ; \
rf 2 A 25 Ge 4 Ne N We .
S 2a 8 0 G \) AVA \
es = + << g q ay 4 ma \Y 4
NAS a . \)
“ & $ i sag cs NY wt EAR XR. : S mets
. ~ Ban Se aS t \ N iS 0
off N iy
‘ " a 5 v \ . ¢ y eS \ whee \
RskesR SE AAS
8 & S. Q \) 8 S
\ By wes y
SIS 0) AY P
SS NR . A v rt y i fen)
% US ‘ ( oe NE very
SWC cil NOS N
BSN § oe . N \ mn
> Bd é S aS a \ . N)
WY SRS md s Sal
a) ~ DA R s \ oS \ \ n
Ye $ a * XK <) () \ A . y V (
Lu rs A Hos ‘
KK ‘ ian - a \ x
% ot fy \ <f a
° o ih o RAN SS os v a
= >» S Ss ‘4 ve i vA a) Y 8 ale
: x i . Xi Ney , Do i
Lu = 5 “ 7 4 , 3
SUNT RS 0
= a i ey FA é 00 ‘iN Q N \ Rs ’
< a 0g ffi fs egy © Sit AY \ 0 x Nu v
4 : Pw a Ts eas N CAL 9
—_ ye Ow r. SS A WS . Y \ ' N iN)
© of 3 W
& i Sat eS RSaS Oqh ‘ ony hd fe >
ae oS oo 0 = i ed Ne WY \ Ne : OS. OG “\ " Vo SPY ; fp
pene < Se : sO oY Re, (ue oi RS \ 8 a x % % IO Ass
° 5 20% . iy oy 3 es x eo mat y .
Fo) ett . CR ESS ks = £39 rv oan ra MAN RAIN Ka)
- or
re 9
_ eo
o a)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

JAMES TYRONE EDWARDS, #244 859 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 3:06-CV-740-MHT

SGT. MOORE, et al., *

Defendants. *

 ______________________________

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Waive Partial Filing Fee which the court

construes as a motion for leave to proceed without payment of the initial partial filing fee,

and for good cause, it is 

ORDERED that the motion (Doc. No. 11) be and is hereby GRANTED. 

Plaintiff is reminded that this court must, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(b)(1), “assess and, when funds exist, collect” the $350.00 filing fee from monies

available to Plaintiff, when the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00. The court may

not waive or temporarily exempt Plaintiff from compliance with the statutory provisions

regarding payment of filing fees.

DONE, this 3rd day of October, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-00740-MHT-SRW Document 12 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-00740-MHT-SRW Document 12 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 27 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 966.161 Reapportionment of Committee Membership. Pursuant to § 966.25, industry membership on the Florida Tomato Committee shall be reapportioned as follows: ( a ) District 1—five members and their alternates.
( b ) District 2—five members and their alternates.
[86 FR 57357, Oct. 15, 2021]
#### In the Matter of Mille Palmieri, Doing Business as Maroon Rest. *&*Bar, Petitioner, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul respondent’s determination, dated January 9, 1968, which suspended the petitioner’s restaurant liquor license for 10 days and made demand upon petitioner’s $1,000 bond. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. Respondent could not disregard the determination of the Criminal Court of the City of New York ordering the suppression of certain physical evidence of gambling activities. Such items could not be admitted into evidence in the hearing before respondent *(Matter of Finn’s Liq. Shop*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*24 N Y 2d 647, 662). We are of the opinion, however, that even with the exclusion of the suppressed evidence the proof of petitioner’s culpability as charged amounted to substantial evidence, sufficient to support the determination (cf. *Matter of Southside Rest.*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*34 A D 2d 565). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Brennan, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1045

#### Editorial Notes:Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

§ 1045.145 Who must review output from a classified IT system that is marked as RD, FRD, or TFNI?

Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

If the output is a final product that has been reviewed by a person with appropriate authority, and is properly marked, or is a working paper that is properly marked, no additional review is required. Otherwise, the output must be reviewed in accordance with § 1045.30.
From:

Sent: To: Cc: Subject: IFCCadmin <admin@islandfamily.o.rg> Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:37 PM EAS(OST) EAS(OST);admin@islandfamily.org Makani Kai 

### Faulk. Scott (OSn

To Whom It May Concern: We are writing with regards to Makani Kai. They have been our airline of choice for the past 2years. They are avery good company, our group flies to Kalaupapa several times a year, and their prices and service have been affordable for the local people. Other airlines have higher prices to fly into Kalaupapa and the service is not asgood
.. We hope they will be the carrier of choice for those flying into Kalaupapa, asthey are our number one airline. We support Makani Kaiand all agree that this isa needed and necessary service provider. Mahalo KeAkua! Imua Pamela M. Garza Dr. Armando K. Garza Elroy N. Kaniho Dr. Mitchell C. Eli Eleanor A. Eli Janet B
. Eli Desiree D.N
. Eli Pastor Ken Humphries William Akiona Marjorie K
. Garza Lael K. Garza Armando I
. Garza

1Tiffany L.Garza Juanita K. Mayeda Glenn D. Mayeda

2
1903.670 Contracts between the Broadcasting Board of Governors and former employees.       To avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of preferential treatment, purchase orders, contracts, grants or cooperative agreements with former employees of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or with firms in which former employees or their family members are known to have controlling interest, may be entered into within two years following separation from employment only with the written approval of the Board Director. A written justification shall be made a part of the file. The justification must address the issue of conflict of interest and conclude that it does not exist; or that in spite of its existence, the Board's ability to meet its mission would be seriously harmed without the award.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1903.6 - Contracts With Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them
334.202 Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs).

(a) An IBR normally should be conducted as a post-award activity. A pre-award IBR may be

conducted only if -

(1) The acquisition plan contains documentation that demonstrates the need and rationale for a preaward IBR, including an assessment of the impact on the source selection schedule and the expected

benefits;

(2) The use of a pre-award IBR is approved in writing by the head of the contracting activity prior to

the issuance of the solicitation;

(3) The source selection plan and solicitation specifically addresses how the results of a pre-award

IBR will be used during source selection, including any weight to be given to it in source evaluation;

and

(4) Specific arrangements are made, and budget authority is provided, to compensate all offerors

who prepare for or participate in a pre-award IBR; and the solicitation informs prospective offerors

of the means for and conditions of such compensation.

Parent topic: Subpart 334.2 - Earned Value Management System
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 2:06CR202-WKW

)

EUGENE L.CLECKLER )

KIM CLECKLER )

ORDER

For good cause it is 

ORDERED that the deadline for filing proposed voir dire, jury instructions and

motions in limine in the above-case now set for January 2, 2007 be and is hereby RESET

for December 28, 2006.

Done this 17 day of November, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 50 Filed 11/17/2006 Page 1 of 1