alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 960.5-2-4 Offsite installations and operations. ( a ) *Qualifying condition.* The site shall be located such that present projected effects from nearby industrial, transportation, and military installations and operations, including atomic energy defense activities, (1) will not significantly affect repository siting, construction, operation, closure, or decommissioning or can be accommodated by engineering measures and (2), when considered together with emissions from repository operation and closure, will not be likely to lead to radionuclide releases to an unrestricted area greater than those allowable under the requirements specified in § 960.5-1(a)(1).
( b ) *Favorable condition.* Absence of contributing radioactive releases from other nuclear installations and operations that must be considered under the requirements of 40 CFR 191, subpart A.
( c ) *Potentially adverse conditions.* ( 1 ) The presence of nearby potentially hazardous installations or operations that could adversely affect repository operation or closure.
( 2 ) Presence of other nuclear installations and operations, subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 190 or 40 CFR part 191, subpart A, with actual or projected releases near the maximum value permissible under those standards.
( d ) *Disqualifying condition.* A site shall be disqualified if atomic energy defense activities in proximity to the site are expected to conflict irreconcilably with repository siting, construction, operation, closure, or decommissioning.
**Utah**

**Utah 06 Garfield**
#### Sydney L. Frehafer, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 47978.)

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a judgment of the Court of Claims, entered October 1, 1968, which dismissed his claim *866upon the ground that he was contributorily negligent. The claimant, traveling in a southerly direction on Route 11 approximately 3.1 miles south of the village of Whitney Point, New York, while proceeding up an incline of a three-lane road (two lanes for southerly traffic) and while passing a line of vehicles, proceeded over the crest of the hill, apparently observed that the road reverted to two lanes, applied his brakes on the wet pavement, causing the automobile to “fishtail”, crossing to the wrong side of the highway and colliding with a north bound automobile traveling on its own side of the road. From the photographs in evidence, it would appear that where the accident happefied was still part of the three lane highway. The court found “ that the State Was negligent in the designing and signing of the highway' [Route 11] at the pldee of the accident and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.” It then found, “ When one approaches the crest of a hill beyond which he cannot see, it seems that a prudent driver would have his ear under control in anticipation of possible hazards that he might encounter.” The legal speed limit at the place of the accident was 50 miles per hour and the court found that the claimant was proceeding at that speed. Claimant has amnesia as to the accident and the events surrounding it. Upon the present record, it cannot be said that the sign which indicated that the claimant’s outside lane would narrow rather than his driving lane created a trap because there is no evidence that claimant observed that sign and, therefore, the sign, as such, could not be the proximate cause of the happening of the accident. However, as eláimant approached the crest of the hill there was a *“*no passing ” sign and before that there was the sign indicating that the road narrowed. While those signs might have been inadequate to warn the claimant that his lane would shift to the right, nevertheless they were adequate to warn of a hazardous driving condition ahead and out of sight as one approached the crest of the hill. Under such circumstances a reasonable and prudent person would have proceeded at less than the posted rate of speed or would have been prepared to brake his car so as not to lose control when he reached the hazardous situation on what was described as a wet and slippery road. We affirm the finding that the claimant' was contributorily negligent and, accordingly, do not pass on the issues of whether or not the State was negligent or that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.; Aulisi, J., not voting.
# EUR-Lex - 31981L0577 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31981L0577

**Council Directive 81/577/EEC of 20 July 1981 amending Council Directive 74/408/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the interior fittings of motor vehicles (strength of seats and of their anchorages) **

*
Official Journal L 209 , 29/07/1981 P. 0034 - 0034 Finnish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0151 Spanish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0217 Swedish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0151 Portuguese special edition Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0217 *

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 20 July 1981 amending Council Directive 74/408/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the interior fittings of motor vehicles (strength of seats and of their anchorages) (81/577/EEC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),

Whereas Council Directive 74/408/EEC of 22 July 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the interior fittings of motor vehicles (strength of seats and of their anchorages) (4) does not permit EEC type-approval of a vehicle concerning the strength of the seats and of their anchorages if these seats have built-in safety belt anchorages;

Whereas in the interests of road safety, Directive 74/408/EEC should be amended without delay for vehicles with seats fitted with one or more belt anchorages, in order to make them more comfortable to use by a larger number of adult occupants and thus increase the rate of belt wearing ; whereas such an amendment has been made possible by technical progress in motor-vehicle construction,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 74/408/EEC shall be amended as follows: 1. Article 1 (2) is replaced by the following:

"2. This Directive does not apply to folding (tip-up) seats or to side-facing or rearward-facing seats."

2. Section 2.7 of Annex I is replaced by the following.

"2.7. "Folding (tip-up) seat" means an auxiliary seat intended for occasional use and which is normally folded out of the way."

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the provisions necessary in order to comply with this Directive within six months of its notification. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

Article 3

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 July 1981.

For the Council

The President

P. WALKER (1) OJ No C 87, 9.4.1980, p. 7. (2) OJ No C 265, 13.10.1980, p. 77. (3) OJ No C 230, 8.9.1980, p. 6. (4) OJ No L 221, 12.8.1974, p. 1.
04/01/08
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2022

- 2323

_____________________________
W ILLIE J EROME N EWSOME III
, Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Union County

. Mitchell D. Bishop , Judge

.

March 4, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , M.K. T HOMAS , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary
, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee

.
Order filed June 10, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00441

- CR

____________ DAVID SHANE WEST , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405TH District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. 10CR2876



### ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C, 15 and 171 .The clerk of the 405TH District Court is directed to deli ver to the Clerk of

this court the original of State's exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C, 15 and 171 , on or before June 20, 2013. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State's exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C, 15 and 171 , to the clerk of the 405TH District Court.

PER CURIAM
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.312 Required characteristics of the reasonably maximally exposed individual. The reasonably maximally exposed individual is a hypothetical person who meets the following criteria: ( a ) Lives in the accessible environment above the highest concentration of radionuclides in the plume of contamination;
( b ) Has a diet and living style representative of the people who now reside in the Town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada. DOE must use projections based upon surveys of the people residing in the Town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada, to determine their current diets and living styles and use the mean values of these factors in the assessments conducted for §§ 63.311 and 63.321;
( c ) Uses well water with average concentrations of radionuclides based on an annual water demand of 3000 acre-feet;
( d ) Drinks 2 liters of water per day from wells drilled into the groundwater at the location specified in paragraph (a) of this section; and
( e ) Is an adult with metabolic and physiological considerations consistent with present knowledge of adults.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40944

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL RIOS-OJEDA, also known as Jose Ortiz-Villarreal, also known as 

Victor Flores-Huerta, also known as Ulises Garrido-Zambudio,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-74-1

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Manuel Rios-Ojeda raises an 

argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 F.3d 

437 (5th Cir. 2014). In Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 F.3d at 437-38, we rejected the 

argument that the Texas offense of theft is broader than the generic, 

contemporary definition of theft because the Texas offense, which includes 

 

* 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

February 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40944 Document: 00513882987 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
No. 16-40944

2

theft by deception, may be committed by taking property with the owner’s 

consent. Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and 

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40944 Document: 00513882987 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
* Judge King did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6369

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KARRIEM ALI AKRAM, a/k/a Vincent N. Johnson, a/k/a Kareem, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-211, CA-97-403) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 30, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, * Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Karriem Ali Akram, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is dated February 22, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 23, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 3 PER CURIAM: Karriem Ali Akram appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion for failure to obtain authorization from this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999), and denying his request for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Akram, Nos. CR-91-211; CA-97-403 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 13, 1998 & Feb. 23, 1999). * 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.

DISMISSED
H. Res. 295

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 27, 2006.

Whereas recent student housing fires in Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Tennessee, and Maryland have tragically cut short the 

lives of some of the youth of our Nation; 

Whereas since January 2000, at least 75 people, including 

students, parents, and children have died in student 

housing fires; 

Whereas over three-fourths of these deaths have occurred in 

off-campus occupancies; 

Whereas a majority of the students across the Nation live in 

off-campus occupancies; 

Whereas a number of fatal fires have occurred in buildings 

where the fire safety systems have been compromised or 

disabled by the occupants; 

Whereas it is recognized that automatic fire alarm systems 

provide the necessary early warning to occupants and the 

fire department of a fire so that appropriate action can 

be taken; 

Whereas it is recognized that automatic fire sprinkler systems 

are a highly effective method of controlling or extinguishing a fire in its early stages, protecting the lives of 

the building’s occupants; 
2

•HRES 295 EH 

Whereas many students are living in off-campus occupancies, 

Greek housing, and residence halls that are not adequately protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems 

and automatic fire alarm systems; 

Whereas it is recognized that fire safety education is an effective method of reducing the occurrence of fires and reducing the resulting loss of life and property damage; 

Whereas students are not routinely receiving effective fire 

safety education throughout their entire college career; 

Whereas it is vital to educate the future generation of our 

Nation about the importance of fire safety behavior so 

that these behaviors can help to ensure their safety during their college years and beyond; and 

Whereas by developing a generation of fire-safe adults, future 

loss of life from fires can be significantly reduced: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) supports the establishment of September as 

Campus Fire Safety Month; 

(2) encourages administrators and municipalities 

across the country to provide educational programs to all 

students during September and throughout the school 

year; and 

(3) encourages administrators and municipalities to 

evaluate the level of fire safety being provided in both 

on- and off-campus student housing and take the necessary steps to ensure fire-safe living environments 

through fire safety education, installation of fire sup-
3

•HRES 295 EH 

pression and detection systems and the development and 

enforcement of applicable codes relating to fire safety. 

Attest:

Clerk.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 11, 2014

NO. 03-14-00211-CV

PM Management-Killeen III NC, LLC d/b/a Hill Country Rehab and Nursing Center;

and Trisun Healthcare, LLC, Appellants

v.

Georgia Kielman, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on March 14, 2014. Appellants have 

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. The 

appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHN HENRY SCHNEIDER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-30187 

D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00077-SPW-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

John Henry Schneider appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

concealment of bankruptcy assets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Schneider’s request for oral 

argument is, therefore, denied. 

FILED

JUL 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-30187 

Schneider argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective at 

sentencing for failing to object to (1) the loss calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1; 

(2) the introduction and content of victim impact statements; and (3) the district 

court’s alleged failure to properly consider and weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors. We decline to address these claims on direct appeal because

the record is insufficiently developed to permit determination of the issues, and 

Schneider’s legal representation was not so inadequate that it obviously denied him 

his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 

1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

We decline to reach Schneider’s additional claims because he did not 

specifically and distinctly raise and argue those issues in his opening brief. See 

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
ex10-18.htm


    

      
        

      

      EXHIBIT
10.18

      


      


      2010
INCENTIVE PLAN FOR CERTAIN KEY EMPLOYEES

      


      The
Company has a discretionary annual incentive program under which exempt salaried
employees (other than the Chairman) may earn cash payments based on a percentage
of base annual salary.  The actual percent is based on a variety of
guidelines including the performance levels of the respective business units
measured by operating income subject to certain adjustments.

      


      The
payment to an employee is based upon (i) their assigned grade level, (ii) actual
company earnings achieved relative to a pre-determined target, which is adjusted
upward if company performance exceeds target and reduced if company performance
is less than target, and (iii) base salary paid during the fiscal
year.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER




I, Leslie J. Kessler, Chief Executive Officer of PureSafe Water Systems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), hereby certify that the Form 10-Q of PureSafe Water Systems, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





Date:  May 20, 2011
/s/ Leslie J. KesslerLeslie J. KesslerChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ABINGTON
SAVINGS BANK REPORT ON FORM 10Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,759
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             162
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    100,977
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          60,166
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            59,762
<LOANS>                                        310,473
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (2,193)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 501,622
<DEPOSITS>                                     315,568
<SHORT-TERM>                                    32,870
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,440
<LONG-TERM>                                    112,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           234
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 501,622
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,397
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,553
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    35
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                26,985
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,197
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,840
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,145
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      473
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 326
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,338
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,338
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,275
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.67
<LOANS-NON>                                        617
<LOANS-PAST>                                        36
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,811
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      243
<RECOVERIES>                                       152
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,193
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                61
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,132
        

</TABLE>