alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20183 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE LUIS ESPINOSA-HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Luis Espinosa Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-328-1
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Espinosa-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction ofone charge of illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the district court erred by imposing a sentence that exceeded the pertinent guidelines recommendation. Our review of the record, including the exhaustive reasons given by the district court in support of its judgment, shows no United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-20183

2 reversible error in connection with Espinosa-Hernandez’s sentence. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706-08 (5th Cir. 2006). Espinosa-Hernandez also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment ofprior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. EspinosaHernandez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by A lmendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that A lmendarezTorres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Alme

ndarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejec ted such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. SeeUnited Statesv. Garza-Lopez, 410F. 3 d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 200 5). Espinosa-Hernandez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light ofAlmendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Lowell E. SMITH and Martha S. SMITH *v.*C. H. POND et al

75-352

534 S.W. 2d 769

April 5, 1976

*Elrod, Elrod & Elrod,*for appellants.

*Walker, Campbell, McCorkindale & Young,*for appellees.

PER CURIAM

This decree must be affirmed, owing to the appellants’ noncompliance with Supreme Court Rule 9. Instead of submitting an abstract of the record, as the rule requires, the appellants have simply printed the record, including 265 pages of testimony in question and answer form. That is followed by a ten-page brief, arguing only an issue of fact turning upon the preponderance of the evidence. Under our settled practice an affirmance is required. *Sellers*v. *Harvey,*222 Ark. 804, 263 S.W. 2d 86; *Gray*v. *Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.,*239 Ark. 141, 387 S.W. 2d 605. As pointed out many years ago, the rule is for the convenience of the court, to aid in the dispatch of its business. *St. Louis & S.F. R.R.*v. *Newman,*105 Ark. 63, 150 S.W. 560. This instance demonstrates the need for the rule. This case and thirteen others were in the weekly submission on March 29. The printed abstracts and briefs totaled 2,516 pages, plus a number of exhibits. Obviously the court’s constantly increasing caseload cannot be managed if records are printed in full, in disregard of the rule.

Decree affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23237]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Announcing a Meeting of the Information Security and Privacy 
Advisory Board

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 
notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy 
Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, October 7, 2009, from 9 
a.m. until 4 p.m. All sessions will be open to the public. The ISPAB 
was established by the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235) 
and amended by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 
(Pub. L. 107-347) to advise the Secretary of Commerce and the Director 
of NIST on security and privacy issues pertaining to federal computer 
systems. Details regarding the ISPAB's activities are available at 
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/index.html/.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 7, 2009, from 9 a.m. until 4 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at NTSB Board Room/Conference 
Center, located at 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024, on 
October 7, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pauline Bowen, ISPAB Secretariat, 
Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, 
telephone: (301) 975-2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda

--Board Discussion.
--Public Participation.
--Board Discussion.
--NIST ITL Future Directions.
    Note that agenda items may change without notice because of 
possible unexpected schedule conflicts of presenters. The final agenda 
will be posted on the website indicated above.
    Public Participation: The ISPAB agenda will include a period of 
time, not to exceed thirty minutes, for oral comments from the public 
(Wednesday, October 7, 2009, at 10:30-11 a.m.). Each speaker will be 
limited to five minutes. Members of the public who are interested in 
speaking are asked to contact the ISPAB Secretariat at the telephone 
number indicated above. In addition, written statements are invited and 
may be submitted to the ISPAB at any time. Written statements should be 
directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930. Approximately 15 seats will be 
available for the public and media on October 7, 2009.

    Dated: September 17, 2009.
Patrick Gallagher,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E9-23237 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2622 

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

to require de novo review of claims determinations made by employee 

benefit plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2007 

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require de novo review of claims 

determinations made by employee benefit plans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equality for Workers 

5 under ERISA Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DE NOVO REVIEW OF CLAIMS DETERMINATIONS BY 

7 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 502(e) of the Employee 

9 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2622 IH

1 1132(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following 

2 new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(3) Any action commenced under subsection 

4 (a)(1)(B) shall be adjudicated as a de novo proceeding 

5 without deference to any claim determination made prior 

6 to the commencement of such action.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to claim determina9 tions made by plans on or after the date of the enactment 

10 of this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with BILLS
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 606/2005

of 19 April 2005         

amending Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 51(b) and Article 145(c) and (d) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 is amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 April 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2005 (OJ L 24, 27.1.2005, p. 15).

(2)OJ L 141, 30.4.2004, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 394/2005 (OJ L 63, 10.3.2005, p. 17).

(3)OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 48.

----

ANNEX

                     ‘ANNEX

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49876-49877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


President's Advisory Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood 
Partnerships

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the President's Advisory Council for 
Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: President's Advisory Council for Faith-based and 
Neighborhood Partnerships Council Meeting.

[[Page 49877]]

    Time and Date: Tuesday, October 13th, 9 a.m.-1 p.m. and 2 p.m.-6 
p.m. Eastern.
    Place: Meetings will be held in person. Location TBD.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
Conference call line will be available.
    Purpose: The Council brings together leaders and experts in 
fields related to the work of faith-based and neighborhood 
organizations in order to: Identify best practices and successful 
modes of delivering social services; evaluate the need for 
improvements in the implementation and coordination of public 
policies relating to faith- based and other neighborhood 
organizations; and make recommendations for changes in policies, 
programs, and practices.
    Contact Person for Additional Information: Mara Vanderslice, 
202-260-1931, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#533e3221327d25323d373621203f3a3036133b3b207d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6805091a09461e09060c0d1a1b04010b0d2800001b460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Supplementary Information: Please contact Mara Vanderslice for 
more information about how to attend the meeting or join via 
conference call line.
    Agenda: Topics to be discussed include deliberation on draft 
recommendations for Council report.

    Dated: September 24, 2009.
Mara Vanderslice,
Special Assistant.
[FR Doc. E9-23483 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-07-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 4.117


 


Maximum Guarantee
Contract


 


Contract No.:
2014JIYINZUIQUANBAOZIDI14120746


Guarantor: LI YONG HUI 


 


Guarantee: CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


 


Signing Date : June 27, 2014


 


Guarantee Definition : To ensure multiple loans Party B (Guarantee)
has lent to Hebei Xuhua Trading Co.,Ltd., Party A (Guarantor) is willing to provide the Maximum Guarantee hereunder for Party B.


 


Maximum Amount: RMB105,000,000


 


Guarantee Term : From June 27, 2014 to December 23, 2015
42315.

#### SAPP v. TAIT et al.

Argued September 9, 1966

Decided October 27, 1966

Rehearing denied November 10, 1966.

*Cowart, Sapp, Alaimo & Gale, Neal G. Gale,*for appellant.

*Bennet, Gilbert, Gilbert & Whittle, Wallace E. Harrell, Lloyd E. Grimes, Jerrell T. Hendrix, Albert Fendig, Jr.,*for appellees.

Felton, Chief Judge.

In this damage action, after all of plaintiff’s amendments to the petition had been filed, the defendant C. S. Tait, d/b/a Tait’s Auto Service, renewed his general demurrer which the judge of the trial court overruled. The case was tried by a judge emeritus who directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, C. S. Tait, from which the plaintiff appeals. As will be seen from the allegations in the petition, the overruling of the general demurrer constituted a ruling that the petition stated a cause of action and in the absence of a cross or direct appeal from the ruling on the renewed general demurrer such ruling became the law of the case. The evidence was conflicting and authorized a verdict either way as to C. S. Tait; therefore, the court erred in directing the verdict for C. S. Tait. *C. & S. Realty Co. v. Perry Printing Process Co.,*111 Ga. App. 671 (143 SE2d 29).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Parnell,*«77., *concur.*
**Court of Appeals**

**Sixth Appellate District of Texas**

JUDGMENT

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Brandon Quadnell Horne, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal.  Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 27, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk

# image1.png
# Official Journal L 238/8 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 238 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 478 July 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 238

English edition

Legislation

Volume 478 July 2004

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Council |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 1241/2004 of 5 July 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

Council

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 1241/2004 of 5 July 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### STANDARD OIL CO. V. THE STATE.

(Decided June 13, 1912.)

Appeal from Madison Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. James H. Ballentine.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, and John S. .Stone, for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, J. —

Reversed and rendered on the authority of *Standard Oil Co. v. The State,*59 South. 667.
41796.

#### ROBERT & COMPANY ASSOCIATES v. COVIL et al.

Per Curiam.

The judgment of this court in 113 Ga. App. 387 (147 SE2d 825) having been reversed by the Supreme Court in *Hagan v. Robert & Co. Associates,*222 Ga. 469 (150 SE2d *547663), the judgment of this court reversing the trial court is vacated. The plaintiffs’ amendments filed on September 28, 1965, were sufficient to cure the defects in plaintiffs’ petitions. See *Covil v. Robert & Co. Associates,*112 Ga. App. 163, 168 (2) (144 SE2d 450). The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Decided November 2, 1966.

*Woodruff, Saveli, Lane & Williams, Edward L. Saveli, John L. Westmoreland, Sr.,*for appellant.

*Claude E. Hambrick,*for appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
§ 61.30 Per diem—general. ( a ) *General.* VA may provide per diem funds to offset operating costs for a program of supportive housing or services. VA may provide: ( 1 ) Per diem funds to capital grant recipients; or
( 2 ) Per diem only (PDO) funds to entities eligible to receive a capital grant, if the entity established a program of supportive housing or services after November 10, 1992.
( b ) *Capital grant recipients.* Capital grant recipients may request per diem funds after completion of a project funded by a capital grant and a site inspection under § 61.80 to ensure that the grantee is capable of providing supportive services.
( c ) *Per diem only applicants.* PDO awards to entities eligible to receive a capital grant must provide supportive housing or services to the homeless veteran population within 180 days after the date on the notification of award letter, or VA will terminate the PDO payments.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2012)
#### § 1024.12 No fee.

No fee shall be imposed or charge made upon any other person, as a part of settlement costs or otherwise, by a lender in connection with a federally related mortgage loan made by it (or a loan for the purchase of a manufactured home), or by a servicer (as that term is defined under 12 U.S.C. 2605(i)(2)) for or on account of the preparation and distribution of the HUD-1 or HUD-1A settlement statement, escrow account statements required pursuant to section 10 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2609), or statements required by the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.*).
#### § 59.3 Federal Application Identifier.

Once VA has provided the State representative with a Federal Application Identifier Number for a project, the number must be included on all subsequent written communications to VA from the State, or its agent, regarding a request for a grant for that project under this part.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742, 8105, 8131-8137)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan


### September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 136486 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

### SPECTRUM HEALTH, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



### v SC: 136486 COA: 275341 Ionia CC: 06-024796-NF TITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant,

and

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD, Defendant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
September 9, 2008
Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2563 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2563

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
309 East Linn Street in Marshalltown, Iowa, as the ``Major Scott Nisely 
                             Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MAJOR SCOTT NISELY POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 309 East Linn Street in Marshalltown, Iowa, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Major Scott Nisely Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Major 
Scott Nisely Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

June 20, 1997

-tr3^

STAFF DRAFT ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS

COVERED UNDER THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1975

The enclosed staff draft enforcement policy for electric motors is provided for your review and

comments prior to issuing final guidelines in the Federal Register.

On May 8, 1997, the Department of Energy (Department) drafted an enforcement policy for electric

motors covered under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, Public Law 94-163, as

amended (EPCA). The purpose of the draft was to provide guidance to manufacturers of electric

motors, and manufacturers of equipment that uses electric motors, in complying with EPCA. The

draft enforcement policy was circulated to affected interests for review and comments . As a result,

the Department received several letters of comments , all of which were considered during the

preparation of the enclosed staff draft enforcement policy . The enclosed staff draft enforcement

policy is provided for your comments.

Copies of the letters may be read at the Freedom of Information Reading Room, U. S. Department of

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

20585-0101, telephone (202) 586-6020, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

The Department would appreciate receiving your comments on the enclosed staff draft enforcement

policy by July 11, 1997. Written comments should be submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Codes and Standards, EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1J-018,

Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7574.

el J-. McCabe, Director

Office of Codes and Standards

Building Technology, State and

Community Programs

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Enclosure

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 32