alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### L. P. AND J. A. SMITH v. THE UNITED STATES.1

[No. 23013.

Decided December 13, 1920.]

*The Reporter’s*statement of the case:

This cause having been submitted to the court upon the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, the court makes the following findings of fact additional to those found in 54 C. Cls., 119:

I. No officer or officers of the United States other than Col. George J. Lydeclcer insisted that all the material or materials to be removed from Upper Bock Shoal, Lower Bock Shoal, Middle Bock Shoal, Hackett Bock Shoal, and Bar Bock Shoal was clay, sand, gravel, and bowlders.

II. No other officer or officers of the United States than Col. George J. Lydeclcer told L. P. and J. A. Smith that if they did not remove material, which material was not in fact the material specified under the contract, then they would be declared defaulting contractors; that the work would be taken from them; that the same would be done and charged to them, and that it would be paid for from retained percentages in the hands of the defendant due them for work already performed under their contract.

III. Charles Y. Dixon, Assistant United States engineer, Harry Hodgman, United States engineer, subinspector, and Col. George J. Lydecker, Corps of Engineers, United States *41Army, in charge of the work being done by plaintiffs from June 25 to October 19,1897, insisted upon locating for L. P. and J. A. Smith the points where dredging was to be done.

1

 Affirmed, 256 U. S., 11.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         250,505
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  992,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,036,525
<DEPRECIATION>                                 310,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,775,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,045,326
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 32,500,000
<COMMON>                                       105,710
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,458,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,775,936
<SALES>                                     16,658,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,658,969
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,226,496
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             233,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,199,408
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,296,998
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,496,406
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,496,406
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Intent to Open U.S. Embassy Port Vila, Republic of Vanuatu

# 									Intent to Open U.S. Embassy Port Vila, Republic of Vanuatu							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 31, 2023

To further strengthen the bilateral relationship, the U.S. Department of State has conveyed the U.S. intent to the Ni-Vanuatu Government to open an embassy in the Republic of Vanuatu, subject to Congressional notification.

Consistent with the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, a permanent diplomatic presence in Vanuatu would allow the U.S. Government to deepen relationships with Ni-Vanuatu officials and society.  Establishing U.S. Embassy Port Vila would facilitate areas of potential bilateral cooperation and development assistance, including efforts to tackle the climate crisis.

The United States currently maintains diplomatic relations with the Government of Vanuatu but does not have an embassy in Vanuatu.  The Charge d’Affaires, *ad interim*, in Port Moresby is accredited to Vanuatu and regularly travels to Vanuatu.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonVanuatu

Back to Top
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 13, 2022
No. 04-22-00027-CR Ishmal BEARD , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR3901 Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On November 10, 2019, appellant was released under a personal recognizance bond setting a bond in the amount of $12,500. In March 2020, the grand jury returned a true bill of indictment. On September 22, 2021, the bond officer submitted a first violation report stating appellant was non-compliant. That day, the trial court signed an order that doubled the bond to $25,000. On January 10, 2022, appellant pro se filed a “notice of appeal” that fails to identify what appellant intends to appeal. The trial court clerk confirmed to this court that appellant is presently set for trial on January 28, 2022. The clerk’s record was filed on January 12, 2022. The clerk’s record does not contain a final appealable order. As a general rule, a criminal defendant’s right of appeal is limited to an appeal from a final judgment of conviction. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . art. 44.02; see also State v. Sellers , 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (“A defendant’s general right to appeal under [article 44.02] and its predecessors has always been limited to appeal from a ‘final judgment,’ though the statute does not contain this limitation on its face.”). Moreover, “[t]he courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.” Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (quoting Apolinar v. State , 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). We do not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory pretrial order increasing bail because such jurisdiction has not been expressly granted by statute. See Ex parte Herrera , 04-18-00020-CR, 2018 WL 1733123, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 11, 2018, no pet.) (not designated for publication). The notice of appeal does not indicate what appellant intends to appeal, and the record does not reflect either a final appealable order or an interlocutory order on which an immediate appeal is authorized. We, therefore, ORDER appellant to show cause no later than January 27,2022 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All appellate deadlines are

suspended until further order of the court.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of January, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
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. 08-20390

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LOUIS CHARLES MAYES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-727-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Charles Mayes, federal prisoner # 97437-079, appeals the dismissal

of a postconviction motion he styled as “Motion to Correct/Reduce Sentence as

per 28 U.S.C. § 994(n).” He contends that he rendered substantial assistance to

the Government and that the Government is therefore obligated to file a motion

to reduce his sentence. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20390

2

First, Mayes’s reliance on § 994(n) as a basis for a sentence reduction is

misplaced. Section 994(n) requires the United States Sentencing Commission

to “assure that the guidelines reflect the general appropriateness of imposing a

lower sentence . . . to take into account a defendant’s substantial assistance.”

§ 994(n) (emphasis added). By its plain language, § 994(n) imposes no duty on

the Government as prosecutor, or on the sentencing court, and thus provides no

basis for Mayes’s motion to reduce his sentence. 

The Government had no obligation to file a motion to reduce Mayes’s

sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), and its refusal to do

so is not reviewable unless it was based on an unconstitutional motive, or unless

the Government bargained away its discretion. See United States v. Grant, 493

F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2007). Mayes does not allege an unconstitutional motive,

and his mere claim that he provided substantial assistance entitles him to no

relief. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992).

Mayes also contends that plea counsel and postconviction counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by failing to facilitate a sentence reduction in exchange for

assistance. The claim against plea counsel was raised and rejected in 2004 in

a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The claims against postconviction counsel

lack any legal basis because Mayes was not entitled to any counsel in his pursuit

of a Rule 35 motion. See United States v. Palomo, 80 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.

1996).

Mayes’s challenge to his sentence was based on inapplicable authorities

that provide no basis for relief. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
§ 440.181 Home and community-based services for individuals age 65 or older. ( a ) *Description of services—* Home and community-based services for individuals age 65 or older means services, not otherwise furnished under the State's Medicaid plan, or services already furnished under the State's Medicaid plan but in expanded amount, duration, or scope, which are furnished to individuals age 65 or older under a waiver granted under the provisions of part 441, subpart H of this subchapter. Except as provided in § 441.310, the services may consist of any of the services listed in paragraph (b) of this section that are requested by the State, approved by CMS, and furnished to eligible beneficiaries. Service definitions for each service in paragraph (b) of this section must be approved by CMS.
( b ) *Included services.* ( 1 ) Case management services.
( 2 ) Homemaker services.
( 3 ) Home health aide services.
( 4 ) Personal care services.
( 5 ) Adult day health services.
( 6 ) Respite care services.
( 7 ) Other medical and social services requested by the Medicaid agency and approved by CMS, which will contribute to the health and well-being of individuals and their ability to reside in a community-based care setting.
[57 FR 29156, June 30, 1992]
HomeOffice of the Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence...Extraditions

# 									Extraditions							

Office of the Legal Adviser

The Office of the Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence (L/LEI) is responsible for providing legal advice to the Department on international law enforcement matters and managing the Department’s responsibilities in cases of international extradition.

This webpage provides certain information concerning the Department’s role in the extradition process, including contact information for individuals who wish to make submissions for the Department’s consideration of individual extradition cases.

#### Submissions

        - The Secretary of State is the U.S. official responsible for determining whether to surrender a fugitive to a requesting state. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3186 and 3188, the Secretary or his designee makes this determination after a U.S. magistrate or district court judge transmits to the Department a certification of extradition finding that the fugitive’s extradition would be lawful under the pertinent extradition treaty and applicable U.S. law.
        - In determining whether a fugitive should be extradited, the Secretary may consider issues properly raised before the extradition court or a habeas court as well as any humanitarian or other considerations for or against surrender, including whether surrender may violate the United States’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture. See 22 C.F.R. 95.1 et seq. The Secretary also will consider any written materials submitted by the fugitive, his or her counsel, or other interested parties.
        - L/LEI is the proper recipient for such submissions, which may be made via electronic mail to  Extradition@state.gov  or in hard copy addressed to:

U.S. Department of StateOffice of the Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence (L/LEI)Room 54192201 C Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20520
        - For hard copy submissions, L/LEI encourages the use of an express delivery service that offers online tracking and delivery confirmation. Packages submitted through such services generally arrive within two days, while standard mail can take two weeks or more to reach the intended destination.
        - To facilitate the Secretary’s timely consideration, materials should be submitted to L/LEI as soon as possible and generally no later than thirty days following the issuance of the certification of extradition.
        - Questions concerning the submission process should be directed to the L/LEI paralegal specialist who covers the requesting state, and may be delivered by electronic mail to  Extradition@state.gov  or by telephone to (202) 647-5111.

Tags

International LawLaw EnforcementLegal Adviser

Back to Top
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3557

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environmental and

Public Works

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Marion

National Fish Hatchery and the Claude Harris National

Aquacultural Research Center to the State of Alabama.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3557 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Marion National Fish

3 Hatchery Conveyance Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF MARION NATIONAL FISH HATCH5 ERY AND CLAUDE HARRIS NATIONAL

6 AQUACULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER TO THE

7 STATE OF ALABAMA.

8 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180 days

9 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

10 of the Interior shall convey to the State of Alabama with11 out reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the Unit12 ed States in and to the property described in subsection

13 (b) for use by the Game and Fish Division of the Alabama

14 Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as

15 part of the State of Alabama fish culture program.

16 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

17 to in subsection (a) consists of—

18 (1) that portion of the Marion National Fish

19 Hatchery leased to the Alabama Game and Fish Di20 vision, located on State Highway 175 seven miles

21 northeast of Marion, Alabama, as described in

22 Amendment No. 2 to the Cooperative Agreement

23 dated June 6, 1974, between the United States Fish

24 and Wildlife Service and the State of Alabama, De25 partment of Conservation and Natural Resources,

26 Game and Fish Division, comprised of approximately
3

HR 3557 RFS

1 300 acres (more or less), and the Claude Harris Na2 tional Aquacultural Research Center, located on

3 State Highway 175 seven miles northeast of Marion,

4 Alabama, as described in a United States Fish and

5 Wildlife Service document entitled ‘‘EXHIBIT A’’

6 and dated March 19, 1996, comprised of approxi7 mately 298 acres (more or less);

8 (2) all improvements and related personal prop9 erty under the control of the Secretary that is lo10 cated on that property, including buildings, struc11 tures, equipment, and all easements and leases relat12 ing to that property; and

13 (3) all water rights relating to that property.

14 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—If any of the prop15 erty conveyed to the State of Alabama under this section

16 is used for any purpose other than the use authorized

17 under subsection (a), all right, title, and interest in and

18 to all property conveyed under this section shall revert to

19 the United States. The State of Alabama shall ensure that

20 all property reverting to the United States under this sub21 section is in substantially the same or better condition as

22 at the time of transfer to the State.

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.20

Compensation Terms for Jonathan Schwartz

Mr. Schwartz will receive an annual base salary of $1,000,000 and his annual
bonus target under Suns 162(m) Executive Officer Performance-Based Bonus Plan (the Bonus Plan) will be 200% of his annual base salary. Mr. Schwartz will also be granted, effective April 27, 2006, the following
equity-based compensation under Suns 1990 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan (the 1990 Plan):



| |  |  | an option to purchase 2,000,000 shares of Sun Common Stock at an exercise price equal to the per-share fair market value on the date of grant, which shall vest at a rate of
20% per year over five years;
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | 800,000 restricted stock units, all of which shall vest pursuant to certain performance criteria; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | 1,500,000 restricted stock units, which shall vest on the one-year anniversary of the date of grant.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Schwartz will continue to participate in Suns employee benefit programs, including Suns Amended and Restated U.S. Vice President Severance Plan (the VP Severance Plan).

Mr. Schwartz will also enter into Suns standard form of Chief Executive Officer Change of Control Agreement, pursuant to which Mr. Schwartz will be
eligible to receive three times his annual compensation in the event of a change of control, and shall continue to be a party to Suns standard form of Indemnification Agreement.

Sun will cover reasonable expenses for personal security for Mr. Schwartz. The expense of such personal security will be imputed as income to Mr. Schwartz, for which Sun will provide a tax gross-up. Finally,
Sun will provide Mr. Schwartz with private jet access for business and reasonable personal use. The expense of any personal private jet use will be imputed as income to Mr. Schwartz and he will be personally responsible for the associated
taxes.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Hong Kong Autonomy Act Update

# 									Hong Kong Autonomy Act Update							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 17, 2021

Yesterday in Tokyo, Japan, I spoke of the need to stand up for our shared democratic values and to work together to hold to account those who would threaten them. Today, we are again doing that.  The release of today’s update to the Hong Kong Autonomy Act report underscores our deep concern with the National People’s Congress March 11 decision to unilaterally undermine Hong Kong’s electoral system.  This action further undermines the high degree of autonomy promised to people in Hong Kong and denies Hong Kongers a voice in their own governance, a move that the United Kingdom has declared to be a breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Under the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, the Secretary of State is required to regularly update Congress on foreign persons who are materially contributing to, have materially contributed to, or attempt to materially contribute to the failure of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to meet its obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration or Hong Kong’s Basic Law, as defined by the Act.  Today’s update identifies 24 PRC and Hong Kong officials whose actions have reduced Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, including 14 vice chairs of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee and officials in the Hong Kong Police Force’s National Security Division, the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, and the Office for Safeguarding National Security.  Foreign financial institutions that knowingly conduct significant transactions with the individuals listed in today’s report are now subject to sanctions.

A stable, prosperous Hong Kong that respects human rights, freedoms, and political pluralism serves the interests of Hong Kong, mainland China, and the broader international community. The United States stands united with our allies and partners in speaking out for the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong, and we will respond when the PRC fails to meet its obligations.

 

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsHong Kong Autonomy Act UpdateHuman RightsOffice of the SpokespersonPeaceSecretary TripThe Secretary of StateSecurityStabilization

## Related Articles

-  					March 16, 2021								Update to Report on Identification of Foreign Persons Involved in the Erosion of the Obligations of China Under the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law			
Read more
 

Back to Top