alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50085

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL CONTRERAS-AREVALO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-00-CR-401-1-FB

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

August 23, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gabriel Contreras-Arevalo appeals the 70-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Contreras-Arevalo argues that his sentence should

not have exceeded the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Contreras-Arevalo acknowledges

that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision

in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but
No. 01-50085 

-2-

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

the decision in 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). 

Contreras-Arevalo’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.

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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO, 

as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, et al., 

Debtors.

PROMESA Title III 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS (Jointly Administered) 

BRIEF OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS 

COMMISSION OF PUERTO RICO AS 

AMICUS CURIAE 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS

CURIAE BRIEF ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW STANDARDS FOR 

PUBLIC DEBT RESTRUCTURING

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW the Civil Rights Commission of Puerto Rico, through the undersigned attorney, 

and before this Honorable Court respectfully states and prays as follows:

1. On this day, July 11th, 2018, the Civil Rights Commission of Puerto Rico filed a Motion 

for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief on International Human Rights Law Standards for 

Public Debt Restructuring (See Docket No. 3484).

2. Due to an administrative error, the title of the motion is inaccurate. It should read Motion 

for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae on the Need for a Human Rights Based Approach 

to the Government of Puerto Rico Debt. We will be re-filing the correct motion 

subsequently.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3485 Filed:07/11/18 Entered:07/11/18 16:35:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 3
2

3. We hereby respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant the present motion and allow

us to withdraw the filing of Docket No. 3484.

WHEREFORE, the Civil Rights Commission of Puerto Rico respectfully prays from this 

Honorable Court to grant the present motion and allow the withdrawal of the Motion for Leave 

to File Amicus Curiae Brief on International Human Rights Law Standards for Public Debt 

Restructuring.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

It is hereby certified that, on this same date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all 

parties who have made an electronic appearance.

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 11th day of July, 2018.

/s/María A. Rodríguez Medina

USDC-PR 301404

In representation of

Civil Rights Commission of Puerto Rico

416 Ponce de León Ave.

Suite 901

San Juan, P.R. 00918

P.O. Box 192338

San Juan, P.R. 00919-2338

T.: (787) 764-8686

F.: (787) 250-1756

E.: mrodriguez@cdc.pr.gov

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3485 Filed:07/11/18 Entered:07/11/18 16:35:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 3
3

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3485 Filed:07/11/18 Entered:07/11/18 16:35:11 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 3
From: Rahul Pendse <RPendse@trinityconsultants.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:03 PM

To: Land, Eva

Cc: Carlson, Sara

Subject: RE: BH/BH clarifications

Hi Eva,

Please find the requested confirmations/clarifications regarding the annual operating limits below. I will 

call you tomorrow to discuss the clarifications further.

1. Flow Back Boiler: The application (September 18, 2013 version) requested 1,152 MMBtu/yr 

based on 144 hours of annual operation. However, based on the information obtained after the 

permit application was submitted, the flow back boiler may not be equipped with a flow meter. 

Hence, Anadarko requests an annual operating limit of 144 hours/year.

2. Stimulation Vessel Pump Engines: total 4,032 hours per year (504 hours/year per pump * 8 

pumps) 

3. Well Evaluation Vessel fuel limit: 28,800 bbls/yr 

Thanks.

Rahul

.............................................................................................

Rahul Pendse

Manager of Consulting Services

Trinity Consultants – Baton Rouge

301 Main Street, Suite 900 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

Office: 225-346-4003 | Mobile: 714-454-0518

Email: rpendse@trinityconsultants.com

.............................................................................................

From: Land, Eva [mailto:Land.Eva@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:11 PM

To: Rahul Pendse

Subject: BH/BH clarifications

Rahul:

I was doubling checking the numbers that are going into the permit and I just want to make sure we 

have the correct information. If you could let me know which units below would be appropriate I would 

appreciate it. 

1. Flow Back Boiler: Which unit should we include 1152 MMBtu (appendix B table on page 2) or 

1152 hrs/yr (appendix B page 26)

2. Stimulation Vessel Pump Engines: 210 hrs/yr (application page 57) or 4,800 (appendix B)

3. Well Evaluation Vessel fuel limit: 28,000 bbls/yr (application pg. 60) or 28,800 bbls/yr (appendix 

B)
Thanks for clarifying. 

Eva Land 

Air Permits Section

EPA- Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-562-9103

_________________________________________________________________________

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to

which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged

material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or

taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or

entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received

this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any

computer.

_________________________________________________________________________
6/17/2014 Emissions Shawnee Fossil Plant

http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/shawnee.htm 1/3

Emissions

Shawnee Fossil Plant

What TVA is doing about emissions at Shawnee

TVA has taken a number ofsteps to make the efficient generation

of power at Shawnee as clean as possible:

Units 1 through 9 burn a blend of low-sulfur coal to limit

sulfur dioxide emissions and use low-NOx burners to reduce

emissions of nitrogen oxides.

Unit 10 — formerly used as a fluidized bed combustion

boiler project — was idled in October 2010 and will be

evaluated for possible conversion to generating power from

biomass, such as wood waste.

As part of TVA's vision of being one of the nation’s leading

providers of low-cost and cleaner energy by 2020,

Shawnee units 1 and 4 will be converted to renewable

biomass, controlled with scrubbers and selective catalytic

reduction systems, or retired by Dec. 31, 2017.

Sulfur dioxide

See raw data for this chart

View more information on sulfur dioxide and what TVA is doing

about it.

Nitrogen oxides

Emissions by plant

Allen

Brow nsville

Bull Run

Caledonia

Colbert

Cumberland

Gallatin

Gleason

John Sevier

Johnsonville

Kemper

Kingston

Lagoon Creek

Magnolia

Marshall

Paradise

Shaw nee

Southaven

Widow s Creek

Other sites

Emissions by type

Carbon Dioxide

Nitrogen Oxides

Ozone

Sulfur Dioxide

Greenhouse Gases

Toxics Release Inventory

(TRI)

Tennessee Valley Authority
6/17/2014 Emissions Shawnee Fossil Plant

http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/shawnee.htm 2/3

See raw data for this chart

View more information on nitrogen oxides and what TVA is doing

about them.

Carbon dioxide

See raw data for this chart

View more information on carbon dioxide and what TVA is doing

about it.

Toxics Release Inventory

2012 data

All amounts are in pounds

Chemical Air Water Land Off-Site

Disposal

Total

Hydrochloric Acid

(aerosol)

320,000 0 0 0 320,000

Hydrogen Fluoride 330,000 0 0 0 330,000

Sulfuric Acid

(aerosol)

3,900 0 0 0 3,900

Ammonia

Antimony

Compounds

Arsenic Compounds

Barium Compounds 5,850 01,940,000 321,945,882

Beryllium

Compounds

Cadmium

Compounds

Chromium

Compounds

272 0 29,700 1 29,973

Cobalt Compounds

Copper

Compounds

252 5,000 43,500 0 48,752

Lead Compounds 182 0 18,000 2 18,184

Manganese

Compounds

534 26 81,000 0 81,560
6/17/2014 Emissions Shawnee Fossil Plant

http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/shawnee.htm 3/3

Mercury

Compounds

180 0 117 0 297

NickelCompounds

Selenium

Compounds

Silver Compounds

Thallium

Compounds

Vanadium

Compounds

253 740 57,300 0 58,293

Zinc Compounds 1,004 1,700 49,600 0 52,304

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0 0 0 0 0

Naphthalene 47 0 0 0 47

Nitrate Compounds

Dioxin (grams) 2 0 0 0 2

Polycyclic Aromatic

Compounds 24 0 9 0 33

Hydrazine

Total 662,498 7,4662,219,226 352,889,225

Gross MWh Generated: 8,548,790

Pounds Released per MWh: 0.389
p. 1 of 2

From: Brian Ashbrook [ mailto:Brian.Ashbrook@ormet.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:56 AM
To: Putney, David Subject: RE: TF emissions data

Mr. Putney,

I believe this is all that you need. Attached is o ur potline Emission data for 2012.

If there is anything else needed or a different tim e frame, please let me know.

Thanks,
Brian Ashbrook

From: Putney, David [ mailto:putney.david@epa.gov ]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:30 AM
To: Brian Ashbrook Subject: FW: TF emissions data

Brian,

My apologies, I realize that I should have been mor e specific. What I am looking for is TF emissions ( primary and secondary) from the potlines. Emissions from th e carbon bake are low and probably not significantl y impacting the risk estimates and TF emissions are n ot expected from the paste plant.

Thanks,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 Mail Drop D243-02 Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207
Email: putney.david@epa.gov

From: Putney, David Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:10 AM
To: 'Brian Ashbrook' Subject: TF emissions data

Hello Brian,

We (EPA) are finishing up our review of the emissio ns test results you submitted in response to the Information Collection Request (ICR) sent out in Ma rch of 2013. Thank you so much for the time and eff ort you dedicated to conducting those tests and submitting the results. The next step in the residual risk ana lysis is to develop the risk modeling files for your facility. It is essential that we use the best, most accurate estimates of your facility’s emissions in these files so as to m ost accurately estimate the residual risk from your facility (i.e.,p. 2 of 2

the risk remaining after application of the MACT st andards). Through the 2013 ICR we have obtained rec ent, reliable data for emissions of metals and POM from the primary aluminum industry.

However, we did not collect TF data via the 2013 IC R. Since TF affects the multipathway risk assessmen t, the ecological risk assessment, and the acute risk asse ssment a reduction in the estimates of emissions of that pollutant can have a significant impact on the esti mate of residual risk associated with your facility

.

With that in mind, I am asking for some recent data on TF emissions from your facility (e.g., from NES HAP compliance reports). If possible, could you please send me some data (a summary table of values cited in NESHAP compliance reports) for a few recent, repres entative TF emission rates for your facility by COB this Friday (09/20/13)? This data would allow me to avoi d using the emission rates allowed under the NESHAP to estimate your TF emissions (which would likely over estimate your facility’s TF emissions and the assoc iated risks).

Thanks so much,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 Mail Drop D243-02 Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207
Email: putney.david@epa.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          46,514
<SECURITIES>                                    10,187
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                       204
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,113
<PP&E>                                           7,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,931
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,050
<SALES>                                         38,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,453
<CGS>                                            2,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,201
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,945
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,256
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
#### § 151.15 Federal-aid Airport Program: Policy affecting runway or taxiway remarking.

No project for developing or improving an airport may be approved for the Program unless it provides for runway or taxiway remarking if the present marking is obliterated by construction, alteration or repair work included in a FAAP project or by the required routing of construction equipment used therein.

[Amdt. 151-17, 31 FR 16524, Dec. 28, 1966]
#### § 249.10 Waiver of requirements.

A waiver from any provision of this part may be made by the Director, Office of Airline Information, upon the Director's own initiative or upon submission of a written request by a carrier or group of carriers. Each request for waiver shall demonstrate that unusual circumstances warrant a departure from prescribed retention periods, procedures, or techniques, or that compliance with the prescribed requirements would impose an unreasonable burden on the carrier, and that granting the waiver would be in the public interest.

[ER-1214, 46 FR 25415, May 6, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 66726, Dec. 26, 1995; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15932, Apr. 16, 2019]
EXHIBIT B 

Filed Under Seal 

 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3498-2 Filed:07/12/18 Entered:07/12/18 20:41:17 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 1 of 1
§ 25.363 Side load on engine and auxiliary power unit mounts. ( a ) Each engine and auxiliary power unit mount and its supporting structure must be designed for a limit load factor in lateral direction, for the side load on the engine and auxiliary power unit mount, at least equal to the maximum load factor obtained in the yawing conditions but not less than— ( 1 ) 1.33; or
( 2 ) One-third of the limit load factor for flight condition A as prescribed in § 25.333(b).
( b ) The side load prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section may be assumed to be independent of other flight conditions.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5672, Apr. 8, 1970; Amdt. 25-91, 62 FR 40704, July 29, 1997]
Form of Rescission Form



 
Exhibit 4.4 
 
FORM OF
RESCISSION FORM 
 
Banco Latinoamericano de
Exportaciones, S.A. Rights Offering 
 
As set
forth in Banco Latinoamericano de Exportaciones, S.A.’s (the “Company’s”) prospectus dated May     , 2003 (the “Prospectus”) under “The Offer—Payment for Shares,” this form or one
substantially equivalent hereto may be used as a means of effecting the rescission of a subscription for all shares of the Company’s common stock subscribed for by exercise of Rights pursuant to the Primary Subscription and the
Over-Subscription Privilege. Only subscriptions previously received by the Subscription Agent prior to 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June             , 2003 may be rescinded.
Subscriptions received after that time may not be rescinded. Such form may be delivered by hand or sent by facsimile transmission, overnight courier or mail to The Bank of New York, the Subscription Agent, and must be received prior to 5:00
p.m., New York City time, on June             , 2003 (the “Expiration Date”). The terms and conditions of the Offer set forth in the Prospectus are incorporated by reference
herein. Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings attributed to them in the Prospectus. 
 
The Subscription Agent is:  
THE
BANK OF NEW YORK 
 

	 By Mail:
	 	 By Overnight Courier or By Hand:

	 The Bank of New York
 Reorganization Services
 P.O. Box
11248
 Church Street Station
 New York, NY 10286-1248
	 	 The Bank of New York
 Reorganization Services
 101 Barclay
Street
 Receive and Deliver Window,
 Street Level
 New York, NY 10286


 
By
Facsimile Transmission: 
(212) 815-6433 
 
To Confirm Facsimile Transmission Only: 
(212) 815-6212 
 
DELIVERY OF THIS INSTRUMENT TO AN ADDRESS, OR TRANSMISSION 
VIA A
TELECOPY OR FACSIMILE NUMBER, OTHER THAN AS SET FORTH 
ABOVE, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID DELIVERY 







 
PLEASE FILL IN ALL APPLICABLE
INFORMATION: 
 

	 1.
	 	 A)
 

	 	 Number of Shares Subscribed for
 under the Primary Subscription:
  
	 	               
	 	 	  	 I hereby irrevocably rescind my previous subscription
 (which was originally submitted to the Subscription
 Agent prior to 5:00 p.m. on June ___, 2003) for the
 number of Shares indicated herein.
  
 Name of Subscriber(s)/Registered Owner(s):
                
  
                                      
                                        
                             
  
 Signature of
Subscriber(s):                                     
                   
  
                                      
                                        
                             
  
 (Joint owners should each sign. If signing as an
 executor, administrator, attorney, trustee, or guardian,
 give title as such. If a
corporation, sign in the full
 corporate name by an authorized officer. If a
 partnership, sign in the name of authorized person.)

	 	 	 B)
 

	 	 Number of Shares subscribed for under
 the Over-Subscription Privilege:
  
	 	               
  
	 	  
	 	 	 C)
	 	 Total of (A) and (B) above
§ 152.203 Allowable project costs. ( a ) *Airport development.* To be an allowable project cost, for the purposes of computing the amount of an airport development grant, an item that is paid or incurred must, in the opinion of the Administrator— ( 1 ) Have been necessary to accomplish airport development in conformity with— ( i ) The approved plans and specifications for an approved project; and
( ii ) The terms of the grant agreement for the project;
( 2 ) Be reasonable in amount (subject to partial disallowance to the extent the Administrator determines it is unreasonable);
( 3 ) Have been incurred after the date the grant agreement was executed, except that project formulation costs may be allowed even though they were incurred before that date;
( 4 ) Be supported by satisfactory evidence;
( 5 ) Have not been included in an airport planning grant; and
( 6 ) Be a cost determined in accordance with the cost principles for State and local governments in Federal Management Circular 74-4 (39 FR 27133; 43 FR 50977).
( b ) *Airport Planning.* To be an allowable project cost, for the purposes of computing the amount of an airport planning grant, an item that is paid or incurred must, in the opinion of the Administrator— ( 1 ) Have been necessary to accomplish airport planning in comformity with an approved project and the terms of the grant agreement for the project;
( 2 ) Be reasonable in amount;
( 3 ) Have been incurred after the date the grant agreement was entered into, except for substantiated and reasonable costs incurred in designing the study effort;
( 4 ) Be supported by satisfactory evidence; and
( 5 ) Be figured in accordance with Federal Management Circular 74-4 (39 FR 27133; 43 FR 50977).