alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB RUARY 2, 2010 J OHN L EY ACTI NG CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 86 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 02 7- CV-T-3 3M AP UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ex re l.
Pl ai nt iff , PATRICI A HOWARD, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us USA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 2, 2 01 0) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d is m is sa l o f th is cas e fo r th e rea so ns
ex pr es se d i n i ts Orde rs of J anua ry 19 , 20 09 an d M arch 12 , 20 09
. AFFIR MED.

2
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30226

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHEMIKA NICOLE SCROGGINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:03-CR-50037-1

--------------------

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Shemika Nicole Scroggins appeals the sentence imposed

following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to defraud

various insurance companies through the use of the United States

mails in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. For the first time on

appeal, she argues that the district court erred in enhancing her

sentence based on her relevant conduct that was neither admitted

by her nor found by a jury in violation of the Sixth Amendment

under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1531 (2004).
No. 04-30226

-2-

Because Scroggins did not raise this issue in the district

court, this court reviews the argument for plain error. See

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Thus,

Scroggins must show: (1) an error; (2) that is clear or plain;

(3) that affected her substantial rights; and (4) that seriously

affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of her

judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

732-35 (1993); United States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th

Cir. 2000).

Scroggins argues generally that she did not admit the

relevant conduct on which the district court based her sentence

and, therefore, the district court improperly sentenced her under

Blakely. Scroggins makes no showing, as required by Mares, that

the district court would likely have sentenced her differently

under the Booker advisory scheme. Similarly, there is no

indication from the court’s remarks at sentencing that the court

would have reached a different conclusion. Thus, Scroggins has

not met her burden to show that the district court’s increase of

her sentence based on its findings concerning her relevant

conduct was plain error. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-21. 

Accordingly, Scroggins’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 335 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 335

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and increase the 
 deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Neal (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Coyne, and Mr. Bachus) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and increase the 
 deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

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

SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED 
              INDIVIDUALS INCREASED AND MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 162(l) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for health insurance 
costs of self-employed individuals) is amended by striking ``25 
percent'' and inserting ``the applicable percentage''.
    (b) Deduction Made Permanent; Applicable Percentage.--Paragraph (6) 
of section 162(l) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
            ``(6) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
        (1)--

                    In the case of taxable
                                                                       
                      years beginning in
                                                         The applicable
                      calendar year:
                                                         percentage is:
                            1994 or 1995.............        25 percent
                            1996 or 1997.............        50 percent
                            1998 or thereafter.......    100 percent.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24 - 0057 JACE CADE ZEILER, Petitioner and Appellant, V. STATE OF MONTANA,

Appellee/Respondent . **ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE BRIEF** 

Upon Motion of the Petitioner and Appellant, Jace Zeiler, for an extension of time to file his opening brief, and no objection being offered; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opening brief be due April 1 , 2024 . Dated this _______ day March 2024 .

______________________________ JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 15 2024

03/15/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0057
Summary of Executive Compensation



 Exhibit 10.23 
 Summary of Executive Compensation 
 The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) of First
Midwest Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), after considering a market review of total compensation for certain executive officers expected to be named in the Company’s 2009 Proxy Statement, determined the 2009 base salary for such
officers, which is presented in the table below. 
  

				
	 Name and Principal Positions
	  	2009 Base
Salary
	 Mr. Michael L. Scudder, President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	600,000
	 Mr. Thomas J. Schwartz, Group President Commercial Banking
	  	 	475,000
	 Mr. Paul F. Clemens, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	 	295,000
	 Mr. Victor P. Carapella, Executive Vice President and Commercial Banking Group Manager
	  	 	280,000
	 Ms. Janet M. Viano, Group President Retail Banking
	  	 	231,000

 Each of these officers is also eligible to receive certain benefits and to participate in the Company’s
employee benefit plans applicable to executive officers, including the Company’s Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, Pension Plan, Short-Term Incentive Compensation Plan, the Omnibus Stock and Incentive Plan, and Nonqualified Retirement Plan in
accordance with the terms and conditions of such plans. These officers are also parties to Indemnification Agreements and Employment Agreements that, among other things, entitle them to payments upon severance or upon a change in control.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00314-CV

August Petersen, Patsy Petersen and State Farm Lloyds as Subrogee of

August and Patsy Petersen, Appellants

v.

Permian Plastering, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN501914, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants August Petersen, Patsy Petersen and State Farm Lloyds as Subrogee of

August Petersen and Patsy Petersen and appellee Permian Plastering, Inc., no longer wish to

pursue this appeal and have filed an agreed motion for dismissal with prejudice. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal with prejudice. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: December 1, 2005
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3572

To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the

Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the

‘‘William H. Natcher Bridge’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 4, 1996

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which

crosses the Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and

Rockport, Indiana, as the ‘‘William H. Natcher Bridge’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses

5 the Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport,

6 Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William

7 H. Natcher Bridge’’.
2

•HR 3572 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the bridge

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the ‘‘William H. Natcher Bridge’’.

Æ
#### SUSAN HUNTER *v.*UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION/PRATT AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT DIVISION

*Matthew Shafner,*in support of the petition.

Decided January 16, 1997

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 43 Conn. App. 918 (AC 15366), is denied.
### Geology of south-central Hidalgo and north-eastern Mexico, Mexico

By: Kenneth K. Segerstrom

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1104C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (17624 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### James Warren NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-2325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 10, 1980.

James D. Eckert and C. J. Abernathy, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael A. Palecki and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the possession and sale of cocaine. We reverse because the state failed to present proper evidence connecting appellant with the crime.

An undercover agent arranged to buy cocaine from one Knox. They proceeded to a motel and waited in a room until some unidentified person knocked and handed Knox a package of cocaine. Police officers staked out at the motel saw a red pickup truck drive in and park in back of the motel before the delivery took place. Shortly after the sale, officers observed appellant entering a bar a few doors up the street from the motel. They arrested him and a subsequent check revealed that the red pickup truck was registered in his name. In Knox’ car the police found a letter addressed to him at appellant’s residence on the south side of St. Petersburg.

At the trial, the state endeavored to close the obvious gaps in its case by introducing certain statements made by Knox. Knox himself did not appear to testify, but the undercover agent testified that Knox had told him that “his man,” who would be bringing the cocaine from the south side of *1239St. Petersburg, had been arrested three years earlier for selling 85 pounds of marijuana. Another officer then took the stand and testified that he had arrested appellant three years earlier for selling 85 pounds of marijuana.

Knox’ out-of-court statements were obviously hearsay. The state attempted to avoid that obstacle by casting appellant and Knox as the principals of a conspiracy, thus rendering admissible the hearsay statements of co-conspirator Knox under that exception to the hearsay rule. The difficulty is that before any such statements are admissible, the alleged conspiracy itself must first be established by independent evidence, and the hearsay statements may not be used for that purpose. *Briklod v. State,*365 So.2d 1023, 1026 (Fla.1979). In the case before us, only the statements of Knox connect appellant with the crime or with any conspiracy to commit it.

Appellant also attacks the admission of testimony concerning a previous crime-the sale of marijuana three years earlier. In view of our holding on the hearsay point we need not address that issue.

The judgment is reversed with instructions to the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal. *Briklod*v. *State, supra.*

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
### Geology of the lead-zinc deposits in the Municipio de Januaria, State of Minas Gerais, Brazil

By: J. F. Robertson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1110B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (9064 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 3**                            (4983 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 4**                            (759 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 5**                            (983 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
HomeBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsRemarks & Releases...INL Other Reports

# 									INL Other Reports							

Report

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

**02/01/19**National Drug Control Strategy 2009-2017 Archives

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsCombating Drugs and CrimeDrug TraffickingDrugsInternational Narcotics Control Strategy ReportNarcotics

Back to Top
### PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD

6 CFR Ch. Parts 1001-1003

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

AGENCY: Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

ACTION: Semiannual regulatory agenda.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612, and Executive Order

12866, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board publishes the following Agenda of final

regulation that the Board issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Janosek, Chief Legal Officer, (202) 331-

4084

Dated : March 7, 2013.

NAM E: Diane Janosek,

Chief Legal Officer.The 1 Regulatory Agendas

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board - Completed Action

Title Regulation Identifier Number

Freedom of Information, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act Procedures 0311-AA01

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ( PCLOB ) RIN: 0311- AA01

View Related Documents

Title: Freedom of Information, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act Procedures
Abstract: This rulemaking will implement the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's procedures for Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act compliance.

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Completed Action Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 6 CFR 1001 to 1003 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 5 USC 552b Legal Deadline: None

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 05/15/2013 78 FR 28532
NPRM Comment Period End 07/15/2013
Final Action 11/08/2013 78 FR 66995
Final Action Effective 01/07/2014

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Claire McKenna Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Phone: 202 366-0365 E- Mail: claire.mckenna.pclob@dot.gov
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50965

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ALBERTO SANCHEZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-00-CR-251-ALL-WWJ

- - - - - - - - - -

June 15, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Alberto Sanchez-Lopez appeals his 41-month sentence

imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found

in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in

his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element

of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. 

Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he
No. 00-50965

- 2 -

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Sanchez’s

argument is foreclosed. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Luxembourg National Day

# 									Luxembourg National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

June 23, 2023

Congratulations to the people of Luxembourg on the occasion of the Grand Duke’s official birthday. On behalf of the Government of the United States of America, I am honored to recognize our strong partnership and the close friendship between our peoples.

This year marks the 120th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and Luxembourg. Our enduring bond was forged on the battle fields of World War I and World War II, the foundation of our commitment to advancing global freedom and prosperity today.

As founding members of NATO, the United States and Luxembourg strengthen transatlantic security, support rules-based international order, and protect freedom in the face of global threats. As members of the United Nations Human Rights Council, we stand together for human rights and dignity for all people around the world. Together, we continue to hold Russia accountable for its unprovoked and unjustified war against Ukraine and we continue to support the people of Ukraine.

The people of the United States and Luxembourg will also continue to work together to combat pressing global challenges, including climate change, and the peaceful exploration and use of outer space.

Today I join you in celebrating Luxembourg National Day and send my best wishes for the health and prosperity of all Luxembourgish people.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsLuxembourgOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
4.H. Notice of Decision a nd Response to Significant

Environmental Issues.
§ 440.10 Inpatient hospital services, other than services in an institution for mental diseases. ( a ) *Inpatient hospital services* means services that— ( 1 ) Are ordinarily furnished in a hospital for the care and treatment of inpatients;
( 2 ) Are furnished under the direction of a physician or dentist; and
( 3 ) Are furnished in an institution that— ( i ) Is maintained primarily for the care and treatment of patients with disorders other than mental diseases;
( ii ) Is licensed or formally approved as a hospital by an officially designated authority for State standard-setting;
( iii ) Meets the requirements for participation in Medicare as a hospital; and
( iv ) Has in effect a utilization review plan, applicable to all Medicaid patients, that meets the requirements of § 482.30 of this chapter, unless a waiver has been granted by the Secretary.
( b ) Inpatient hospital services do not include SNF and ICF services furnished by a hospital with a swing-bed approval.
[47 FR 21050, May 17, 1982, as amended at 47 FR 31532, July 20, 1982; 51 FR 22041, June 17, 1986, 52 FR 47934, Dec. 17, 1987; 60 FR 61486, Nov. 30, 1995]