alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge ARAMBURO-CARREON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50341.

D.C. No. CR-00-00361-BTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 23, 2001.

*518Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Jorge Aramburo-Carreon appeals his conviction and eight month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we vacate and remand in part, and affirm in part.

Aramburo-Carreon contends that the district court erred by granting him only a two-level downward adjustment for a minor role, instead of a three-level downward adjustment for a minor to minimal role, under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Whether the defendant is a minor or minimal participant under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 is a factual determination that we review for clear error. *United States v. Lui,*941 F.2d 844, 848 (9th Cir.1991).

Because the district court made no factual findings regarding Aramburo-Carreon’s role as to culpability in the larger context of his offense, we cannot determine whether Aramburo-Carreon was entitled to more than the two-level downward adjustment. *United States v. Webster,*996 F.2d 209, 212 (9th Cir.1993); *United States v. Rojas-Millan,*234 F.3d 464, 474 (9th Cir.2000). We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to make this determination.

Aramburo-Carreon next contends that because the statute of his conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 960, is unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the conviction should be overturned. We review for plain error where the defendant is raising an *Apprendi*argument for the first *519time on appeal. *United States v. Nordby,*225 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir.2000).

The district court sentenced Aramburo-Carreon to a term of eight months, a term far lower than the prescribed five-year maximum to which Aramburo-Carreon was subjected under the facts admitted at his plea hearing. *See*21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(4). Because the district court’s findings did not raise Aramburo-Carreon’s sentence beyond that which he would have received based solely upon the facts he admitted at his plea hearing, he can show no prejudice. Accordingly, Aramburo-Carreon cannot demonstrate that any error has “seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. *United States v. Garcia-Guizar,*227 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir.2000).

VACATED and REMANDED in part, and AFFIRMED in part.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
From: Doug Gordon <DGordon@aqmd.gov>

To: Rynda Kay/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:40AM

Subject: RE: Polystyrene Extrusion facilities in SC

History: This message has been forwarded.

See replies in Red below:

From: Rynda Kay [mailto:Kay.Rynda@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:58 AM

To: Doug Gordon

Subject: Polystyrene Extrusion facilities in SC

Hi Doug,

Thanks for talking with me earlier. Here are my questions about extrusion facilities in South Coast:

1) How many/which extrusion facilities in South Coast comply using Rule 1175 option of 2.4 pounds/100 pounds of

raw material processed?

There are currently two extrusion facili es in South Coast, Dart Container and Freeflow Packaging. Both

facili es are complying with the 2.4 pounds/100 pounds limit using a variety of different control devices such

as total enclosures and VOC control equipment in various configura ons.

2) How do they show compliance/ what are reporting and testing requirements?

Both of these companies comply with Rule 1175 by performing a source test once every five years. These

source tests are quite elaborate, are different for each company, and can run up to 3 day or more in

dura on. The purpose of the source test is to take a “worst case scenario” and follow a batch of “raw

material” from the start to the finish. Start to Finish would include the aging process, extrusion process,

storage process, and residue a er shipping.

3) What products do the facilities complying with the above option produce? Do the products vary greatly?

Dart Container produces polystyrene foam cups, plates, and some laminate sheets

https://epamailr812.epa.gov/mail/r9/rhudman.nsf/6d2399d00d65ecc...

1 of 2 5/29/2012 10:58 AM
Freeflow Packaging produces “peanut” packing material

I would say that the products DO vary greatly

4) How do they assure they are meeting the above limit, especially if there is substantial variability in products and

that it is a multi-day process?

We try to make sure that during the “design” of the source test protocol the District and the Company come

up with a comprehensive tes ng procedure that will try to simulate the highest possible emission scenario on

any given day. Along with condi ons imposed on the permit, the District has been sa sfied that these two

companies are in compliance with Rule 1175 on a con nuous basis.

The San Joaquin Valley equivalent rule is being modified to include a 2.4 pounds/100 pounds of material

processed but as averaged on a monthly basis. I am trying to figure out if this monthly averaging is really needed,

when other districts rules seem to require compliance on a continuous basis.

I hope these answers are sufficient.

Doug

Thanks so much,

Rynda

_____________________

Rynda Hudman Kay, Ph.D.

Air Division, US EPA

75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

P: 415.947.4118 | F: 415.947.3579

https://epamailr812.epa.gov/mail/r9/rhudman.nsf/6d2399d00d65ecc...

2 of 2 5/29/2012 10:58 AM
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1114 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1114

  To authorize minors who are under the child labor provisions of the 
 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and who are under 18 years of age to 
    load materials into balers and compacters that meet appropriate 
     American National Standards Institute design safety standards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1995

   Mr. Ewing (for himself, Mr. Combest, Mr. Klink, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. 
   Martinez, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Fawell, and Mr. Bonilla) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Economic and 
                       Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize minors who are under the child labor provisions of the 
 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and who are under 18 years of age to 
    load materials into balers and compacters that meet appropriate 
     American National Standards Institute design safety standards.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR MINORS TO LOAD MATERIALS INTO BALERS AND 
              COMPACTORS.

    In the administration of the child labor provisions of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938, minors under 18 years of age shall be 
permitted to--
            (1) load materials into baling equipment that is in 
        compliance with the American National Standards Institute 
        safety standard ANSI Z245.5 1990, and
            (2) load materials into a compactor that is in compliance 
        with the American National Standards Institute safety standard 
        ANSI Z245.2 1992.
                                 <all>
```
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Remarks and Releases
- Key Topics
- Reports
- Contact Us
- Public Meetings

HomeBureaus & Offices > Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources...U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

# U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

					Subscribe					

## 				Our Mission			

					Since 1948, the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD) has been charged with appraising U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics and to increase the understanding of, and support for, these same activities. The ACPD conducts research and symposiums that provide honest assessments and informed discourse on public diplomacy efforts across government. Supported by the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, the Commission reports to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress. 				

Executive Director, U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Dr. Vivian Walker

							Follow Us:																			Facebook

Back to Top
1 

### Knoppow, Brianna

From: Chumble, Prasad

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:42 PM

To: Knoppow, Brianna Subject: FW: U.S. Forest Service - Aquatic Risk Analysis summary

Attachments: Road_Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources_ PNW Travel Analysis_USFS_April_2015.docx;

ATT00001.htm

Categories: Word Docs or PDFs

From: Marlies Wierenga

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:20 PM

To: Chumble, Prasad
Subject: U.S. Forest Service ‐ Aquatic Risk Analysis summary



### Hello Prasad,

I hope you are doing well.

There were a few items that I menti oned I would send you that may be useful . It has taken me longer than expected to pull things together but I will send some as I get them done.

The first is a summary of the criteria that the U.S. Fore st Service used when evaluating which of their roads are a "high risk" to aquatics. This was a GIS exercise and each forest had th e leeway to choose how they would do the evaluation. So, the methods (and likely results) are highly variable. I compiled examples from 6 national

forests in the Pacific Northw est to give you some idea of what they considered.

If a landowner is not doing a field ba sed inventory, then these criteria might provide some basis for a GIS exercise, though obviously not as thorough.

When the USFS started this analysis years ago, we asked them to please have some consistency, but they chose not to have a top-down approach. I feel that since each forest chos e their own methodology, it makes it very difficult to compare information across the landscape and get an accurate sense of how big the problem actually

is.

I thought you might find it interesting to see how each fore st decided to define and evaluate "aquatic risk".

More to come.

Marlies
40295.

#### ROGERS v. RANEW.

Decided October 1, 1963.

*408*II. B. Williams, Charles Burgamy,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith & Undercofler, William E. Smith,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

“Before an owner can be held liable for the slippery condition of his floors, produced by the presence of a foreign substance thereon, it is necessary that the proof should show that he was aware of the substance or would have known of its presence had he exercised reasonable care.” *Conaway v. McCrory Stores Corp.,*82 Ga. App. 97, 101, supra.

The evidence adduced in behalf of the plaintiff in this regard disclosed nothing more than the fact that she slipped and fell on the edge of the front porch of the defendant’s home as she was departing the premises after making a business appointment with the defendant, that she felt something slippery underfoot as she slipped and fell, but that she had seen nothing visible on the floor of the porch although the light was good and she was looking where she was walking. There was no evidence which disclosed, or from which the jury could infer, what the alleged substance was, how it had gotten on the floor, or how long it had been there. The plaintiff had used the same porch and steps while leaving the house some four hours earlier and did not see any substance on the floor or steps at that time.

Under these circumstances, the evidence was wholly insufficient to show, either directly or by inference, that the defendant was aware of the alleged substance on the floor of the porch or that she could have known of the same by the exercise of ordinary care, *Cook v. Kroger Baking*&c. *Co.,*65 Ga. App. 141 (15 SE2d 531), and the trial court did not err in granting a nonsuit in this case. *Brown v. S. H. Kress Co.,*66 Ga. App. 242 (17 SE2d 758).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,608
<SECURITIES>                                     1,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,962
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,984
<PP&E>                                           1,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,303
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,243
<OTHER-SE>                                    (52,520)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,034
<SALES>                                          2,730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,001
<CGS>                                              726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,392
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,410)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,410)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,410)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
HomeAssisted Schools...Johannesburg, South Africa: American International School of Johannesburg: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Johannesburg, South Africa: American International School of Johannesburg: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

April 4, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +27-11-464-1505 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheets | Acting Regional Education Officer: Tim Stuart 
        -  E-mail: admissions@aisj-jhb.com | Website: www.aisj-jhb.com| Special needsinformation can be found www.aisj-jhb.com/teaching-and-learning/inclusion-services. 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly.    

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Johannesburg- 2024 Special Needs- South Africa) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

**The American International School of Johannesburg** (AISJ) is a leading pre-K through grade 12 co-educational school founded in 1982. AISJ is situated on two beautiful and spacious campuses, with state-of-the-art facilities that serve Johannesburg and Pretoria. AISJ is a truly international community which values and embraces the diversity of its students, faculty and staff. AISJ offers a nurturing and engaging learning environment, small class sizes, international opportunities, and a range of teaching strategies aimed at providing optimal learning and growth for all students. AISJ offers a balanced program with emphasis on the four pillars: academics, athletics and activities, arts, and service learning. AISJ is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSA), a member of the Association of International Schools in Africa (AISA), and also a member of the Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa (ISASA).

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

Office of Overseas SchoolsSouth Africa

Back to Top
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No s. 04 -1 0- 00 14 2- CR; 0 4- 10 -0 01 43 -C R & 04 -1 0- 00 14 4- CR

Da rn e ll HIN ES , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 226th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court Nos. 2007CR11208; 2007C R11209 & 2007CR11210

Honora ble Sid L . Har le, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: March 10, 2010 DI SMI SSED FOR L ACK OF J URI SDI CTI ON I n appea l numbers 04-10-00143- CR and 04-10-00144-CR, appe llant seeks to appe al the trial court’s or ders g rantingthe State’s mot ion to dismiss the underly ing c riminal actions. B eca use the trial court’ s order s are not appea lable orders, we lack jurisdiction t o consider the appea ls. Petty v
. Sta te , 8 00 S.W. 2d

58 2, 58 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —T y le r 1 99 0, no pe t.) ; se e als o H e rn an de z v . S tate , No. 04- 98-0 0 9 88-CR, 1999 W L62355, at *1 (Te x . App.—San Antonio Fe b. 10, 1999, no pet.).04
- 10
- 00 14 2- CR; 04
- 10
- 00 14 3- CR & 04
- 10
- 00 14 4- CR

- 2- Acc ording ly , ap p ea l numbers 04-10-00143- CR and 04-10-00144-CR are dismiss ed for lack of jurisdiction. I n a pp e a l numbe r 0 4- 10 -0 01 42 -C R, t he tr ia l c ourt

imp os e d s e nte nc e in the un de rl yingc a us e on April 9, 2009. No timely motion for new tria l having been f iled, appellant’ s notice of a ppeal wa s due to be f

iled no later tha

n May 11, 2009. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2. Appellant’s notice of appea l was not filed with the tria l court cle rk until January 25, 2010. This court lac ks jurisdiction over an appea l of a c riminal conviction in the ab s en ce of a timely , written notice of appea l. See O livo v. Sta te , 91 8 S.W. 2d 51 9, 52 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); se e als o A te r v . E igh th C ou rt o f A pp e als , 802 S.W .2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (out-of- time a ppeal from final felony conviction may be soug ht by filing a writ of habe as cor

pus pursuant to article 11.07 of t he Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure) ; Ap t v . S tate , No. 04-03-00885- CR, 2004 WL 730832, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antoni o Apr. 7, 2004, no pet.) (unlike rule in c ivil ca ses, notice of appea l f iled with a

ppellate court in c riminal case is not d e e m e d f i l e d t h e s a m e d ay w i th t h e t r i a l c o u rt c l e r k ) ( n o td e s i g n a t e d

f o r p u b l i c at i o n )
. A c c o r d i n g l y, appea l number 04-10- 00142-CR is dis missed for lac k of jurisdiction. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
§ 560.424 Payments from blocked accounts to satisfy obligations prohibited. Pursuant to § 560.211, no debits may be made to a blocked account to pay obligations to U.S. persons or other persons, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part. Note to § 560.424 :
*See also* § 560.502(f), which provides that no license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.
- Office Home
- About
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- IRF Reports
- Religious Freedom Designations
- Ministerial
- Alliance

HomeBureaus & Offices > Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights...Office of International Religious Freedom

# Office of International Religious Freedom

## 				Our Mission			

					The Office of International Religious Freedom promotes universal respect for freedom of religion or belief for all as a core objective of U.S. foreign policy. We monitor religiously motivated abuses, harassment, and discrimination worldwide, and recommend, develop, and implement policies and programs to address these concerns.				

Ambassador at Large

Rashad Hussain

							Follow Us:																			TwitterFacebook

## 							Key Topics						

        -  											Engaging Faith-Based Actors										 
        -  											Monitoring and Combatting Antisemitism										 
        -  											Frequently Asked Questions										 
        -  											IRF Awards										 
        -  											Notice of Funding Opportunity										 

### 											Engaging Faith-Based Actors											

Faith-based actors, organizations, and communities play an influential role in every region of the world and on nearly every issue central to American foreign policy.  These areas include promoting democratic values, protecting the environment, maintaining global health security, and more.
													Learn more about engaging faith-based actors on shared goals													Engaging Faith-Based Actors

### 											Monitoring and Combatting Antisemitism											

The Office of International Religious Freedom works with The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism to advance U.S. foreign policy on antisemitism, including the development and implementation of policies and projects to support efforts to combat antisemitism.
													Learn More about Monitoring and Combatting Antisemitism													Monitoring and Combatting Antisemitism

### 											Frequently Asked Questions											

Find out why the Department of State publishes the annual International Religious Freedom Report and designates Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs).
													Learn More about IRF Report and Countries of Particular Concern													Frequently Asked Questions

### 											IRF Awards											

The Secretary of State's 2023 International Religious Freedom Awards.
													 Learn more about the 2023 Award Recipients													IRF Awards

### 											Notice of Funding Opportunity											

The International Religious Freedom Office funds foreign assistance programs to advance freedom of religion or belief globally.  “Religious freedom” refers to the rights set out in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
													Applicants may find NOFOs (Notification of Funding Opportunities) here													Notice of Funding Opportunity

Back to Top