alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 2704.108 Awards.

If an applicant is entitled to an award under § 2704.105(a) or (b), the award shall be made by the Commission against the Department of Labor.

[63 FR 53176, Nov. 12, 1998]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50998 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

–

Appellee

v.
RAMIRO DIAZ

- ORTIZ, also known as Jose Rangel Ididro, also known as Jose Isidro Rangel

- Romero, also known as Isidro Rangel , Defendant

– Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:12

- CR

- 232

Before PRADO, OWEN , and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Ramiro Diaz

- Ortiz challenges the substantive reasonableness of his 12

- month revocation sentence. We review his sentence under the plainly unreasonable standard. See United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Althoug h Diaz

- Ortiz argues that this standard is incorrect, he

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 28, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50998 Document: 00512749846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2014No. 13

- 50998

acknowledges that t his argument is foreclosed and he raises it only to preserve the issue for further review. At the revocation hearing, the district court acknowledged Diaz

- Ortiz’s arguments

. The district court expressed its concern with his four prior reentries followi ng deportation , the speed with which he returned to the United States after his most recent departure , and his use of numerous aliases, false birth dates, drug s, and alcohol. These reasons echo the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), pa rticularly the need to deter future criminal conduct and protect the public from further crimes by Diaz

Ortiz, as well as the kinds of sentences available generally and for Diaz

- Ortiz’s situation in particular. See § 3553(a)(2)

- (5). We find no indication in the record that t he district court failed to account for a factor that should have receive d significant weight, gave such weight to an improper factor, or clearly erred in balancing the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Diaz

- Ortiz has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence

. See United States v. Lopez

- Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the district court is AFFIR MED.

2 Case: 13-50998 Document: 00512749846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2014
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00166-CV

No. 10-18-00049-CV

DOUBLE DIAMOND, INC.,

Appellant

v.

WHITE BLUFF PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 53310-A and 53310-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Double Diamond, Inc., and appellee, White Bluff Property Owners 

Association, Inc., have informed this Court that they have settled their disputes in 

appellate cause numbers 10-17-00166-CV and 10-18-00049-CV. Accordingly, the parties 

have filed joint motions in both appellate cause numbers. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). 

Specifically, in both appellate cause numbers, the parties filed “Joint Motion[s] for 

Disposition Pursuant to Settlement Agreement,” requesting that we: (1) lift the 
Double Diamond, Inc. v. White Bluff Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. Page 2

abatement of the appeals; (2) set aside the trial court’s final judgments in trial court cause 

numbers 53310-A and 53310-B; (3) render judgment dismissing all claims, with each party 

to bear their own costs of court; (4) order that all costs on appeal shall be borne by the 

party or parties incurring same; and (5) order that this Court’s mandate in both appeals 

shall issue immediately.

“While we cannot both vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal, 

the appellate rules allow us to render judgment vacating the trial court’s judgment and 

dismissing the case, whether that rendition occurs after we consider the merits of the 

appeal or in effectuating the parties’ settlement agreement.” Braums, Inc. v. Sifuentes, No. 

02-16-00001-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1988, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 25, 2016, 

no pet.) (mem. op.) (footnotes omitted) (collecting cases); see TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 

(B), 43.2(e), (f). Accordingly, we grant the parties’ joint motions in appellate cause 

numbers 10-17-00166-CV and 10-18-00049-CV. As such, we lift the abatement in these 

cases, and without regard to the merits and effectuating the parties’ settlement 

agreement, we vacate and set aside the trial court’s final judgments in trial court cause 

numbers 53310-A and 53310-B, and dismiss these cases with prejudice. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e); see also Sifuentes, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1988, at *1 & n.8.

Relying on the parties’ settlement agreement, as articulated in the parties’ joint 

motion in each case, we order that each party bear their own costs of court and the costs 

of these appeals shall be paid by the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P.
Double Diamond, Inc. v. White Bluff Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. Page 3

42.1(a)(2)(A), (d), 43.4. And furthermore, we order that this Court’s mandate in each of 

these cases shall issue immediately.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motions granted; cases dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 19, 2018

[CV06]
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00028

- CR Fred CAMPBELL , Jr. , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas , Appellee From the 187th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 1984CR0397A Honorable Raymond Angelini , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion , Justice Phylis J. Speedlin , Justice Delivered and Filed: March 2, 2011
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION The trial court signed an order denying appellant’s motion for post

- conviction DNA testing on November 29, 2010. Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed December 29, 2010

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 26.2(a)(1) ; T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 64.05 . A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on January 13 , 20 11

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 10 , 20 11 , but appellant did not file a motion for extension of time.04

- 11

- 00028

- CR

- 2

- A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may be considered timely so as to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdicti on if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the court of appeals gran ts the motion for extension of time. See id

. Because the appeal appeared to be untimely, we ordered appellant to show why th i s appeal should not be dismi ssed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to our order. Because appellant’s notice o f appeal was not timely filed, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
§ 1981.109 Decision and orders of the administrative law judge. ( a ) The decision of the administrative law judge will contain appropriate findings, conclusions, and an order pertaining to the remedies provided in paragraph (b) of this section, as appropriate. A determination that a violation has occurred may only be made if the complainant has demonstrated that protected behavior or conduct was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint. Relief may not be ordered if the named person demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of any protected behavior. Neither the Assistant Secretary's determination to dismiss a complaint without completing an investigation pursuant to § 1981.104(b) nor the Assistant Secretary's determination to proceed with an investigation is subject to review by the administrative law judge, and a complaint may not be remanded for the completion of an investigation or for additional findings on the basis that a determination to dismiss was made in error. Rather, if there otherwise is jurisdiction, the administrative law judge will hear the case on the merits.
( b ) If the administrative law judge concludes that the party charged has violated the law, the order shall direct the party charged to take appropriate affirmative action to abate the violation, including, where appropriate, reinstatement of the complainant to that person's former position, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions, and privileges of that employment, and compensatory damages. At the request of the complainant, the administrative law judge shall assess against the named person all costs and expenses (including attorney and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred. If, upon the request of the named person, the administrative law judge determines that a complaint was frivolous or was brought in bad faith, the judge may award to the named person a reasonable attorney's fee, not exceeding $1,000.
( c ) The decision will be served upon all parties to the proceeding. Any administrative law judge's decision requiring reinstatement or lifting an order of reinstatement by the Assistant Secretary will be effective immediately upon receipt of the decision by the named person, and will not be stayed by the filing of a timely petition for review with the Administrative Review Board. All other portions of the judge's order will be effective 10 business days after the date of the decision unless a timely petition for review has been filed with the Administrative Review Board.
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0039 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0039

**2000/39/EC: Commission Decision of 16 December 1999 amending Annex B to Council Directive 90/429/EEC laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species (notified under document number C(1999) 4507) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 013 , 19/01/2000 P. 0021 - 0021 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 16 December 1999

amending Annex B to Council Directive 90/429/EEC laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species

(notified under document number C(1999) 4507)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/39/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/429/EEC of 26 June 1990 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species(1), as last amended by Decision 1999/608/EC(2), and, in particular, Article 17 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) in the case of Aujeszkys disease, a 30-day period after the completion of cleansing and disinfection of a holding, following the elimination of a suspect consignment, is considered as safe;

(2) Annex B(I)(4)(b) to Directive 90/429/EEC should be therefore amended;

(3) the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Annex B(I)(4) of Directive 90/429/EEC, point (b) is replaced by the following:

"no clinical, pathological or serological evidence of Aujeszkys disease has been recorded for the past 30 days".

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 1999.

For the Commission

David BYRNE

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 62.

(2) OJ L 242, 14.9.1999, p. 20.
EXHIBIT 4.1



Certificate No.___6617____   For_________ Shares Issued to_____________________

________________ Transferred from _____________ / /20

Dated _________________________, 20 ___  Receipt acknowledged __________________

No Original Certificate      No Original Shares        No. of Shares Transferred
_______________________      __________________        _________________________

NUMBER                                                  SHARES
6617

                          THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

                        LINCOLN INTERNTIONAL CORPORATION

                           2300 GREENE WAY, SUITE 201
                           LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40220
                             PHONE: (502) 671-0010


THIS CERTIFIES THT ______________________________________ IS THE OWNER OF

____________________________________________________________FULLY PAID

AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE ABOVE BANED CORPORATION
TRANSFERABLE ONLY ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION BY THE HOLDER HEREOF IN
PERSON OR BY DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE
PROPERLY ENDORSED.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE SAID CORPORATION HAS CAUSED THIS
CERTIFICATE TO BE SIGNED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND ITS CORPORATE SEAL
TO HEREUNTO AFFIXED THIS ___________DAY OF ___________________

_____________________________   _______________ ______________________________
TREASURER/SECRETARY                             PRESIDENT

<PAGE>

EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription of ownership on the
face of this certificate, shall be construed as if they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations. Abbreviations, in addition to those
appearing below, may be used.

JT TEN  As joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common
TEN COM  As tenants in common
TEN ENT  As tenants by the entireties
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT   Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
CUST    Custodian for
UNIF TRANS MIN ACT  Uniform Transfers to Minors Act


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ____________HEREBY SEE, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER UNTO
_______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN

CERTIFICATE, AND DO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT
_______________________________________________________ ATTORNEY
TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE BOOKS OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH
FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

DATED ________________________________ 20______

IN PRESENCE OF

____________________________________________   _________________________________


                                  CERTIFICATE


                                      FOR


                                     SHARES

                                       OF





                                   ISSUED TO


                        _______________________________


                                      DATE

                          ____________________________
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 989 

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to clarify that the value 

of certain funeral and burial arrangements are not to be considered 

available resources under the supplemental security income program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Mrs. LINCOLN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to clarify 

that the value of certain funeral and burial arrangements 

are not to be considered available resources under the 

supplemental security income program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FUNERAL AND BURIAL ARRANGE4 MENTS NOT CONSIDERED RESOURCES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1613(e)(3) of the Social 

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382b(e)(3)) is amended by add7 ing at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(C) If— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
2 

•S 989 IS

1 ‘‘(i) an individual or the individual’s spouse en2 ters into an irrevocable contract with a provider of 

3 funeral goods and services for a funeral; 

4 ‘‘(ii) the individual or the individual’s spouse 

5 funds the contract by paying for the goods and serv6 ices; and 

7 ‘‘(iii)(I) the funeral provider subsequently 

8 places the funds in a trust or in escrow; or 

9 ‘‘(II) the individual or the individual’s spouse 

10 establishes an irrevocable trust, and the funeral pro11 vider is the named beneficiary of the trust, 

12 then the trust or escrow shall not be considered a resource 

13 available to the individual.’’. 

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

15 subsection (a) shall apply to payments for supplemental 

16 security income benefits under title XVI of the Social Se17 curity Act for months beginning on or after the date of 

18 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
P090075.eng.sanitized INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No PMN: 09-0075 Focus Ready Draft 12/11/2008 ENGINEER: Hall \ JAS PV (kg/yr):
SUBMITTER: USE: OTHER USES: MSDS: Label: No

CRSS : Chemical Name: S-H20: 0.00129 g/L @ VP: 1.4E-4 torr @ MW: 211.00 %<500 %<1000 Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:
Consumer Use: SAT (concerns) (12/02/2008): Migration to groundwater: Slow PBT rating: P2B1T2 Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3D NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: None.
EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No PMN: 09-0075 Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: Basis: Process Description: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Page 1P090075.eng.sanitized

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation:
Dermal:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No PMN: 09-0075 Number of Sites/ Location: unknown site(s) Days/yr: Basis: Process Description: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation:
Dermal:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No PMN: 09-0075 Number of Sites/ Location: unknown site(s) Days/yr: Basis: Process Description: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Page 2P090075.eng.sanitized
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation:
Dermal:

Page 3
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.88 Additional administrative collection action.

Nothing contained in this subpart is intended to preclude the utilization of any other administrative remedy which may be available.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 26, 2012

t0319 

# Order

March 26, 2012

144125 & (43)

BASIM ALJAZI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 144125 COA: 301038 Ingham CC: 09-001685-CZ STATE FARM INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to

strike is DENIED as moot.
§ 1470.23 Period of availability of funds. ( a ) *General.* Where a funding period is specified, a grantee may charge to the award only costs resulting from obligations of the funding period unless carryover of unobligated balances is permitted, in which case the carryover balances may be charged for costs resulting from obligations of the subsequent funding period.
( b ) *Liquidation of obligations.* A grantee must liquidate all obligations incurred under the award not later than 90 days after the end of the funding period (or as specified in a program regulation) to coincide with the submission of the annual Financial Status Report (SF-269). The Federal agency may extend this deadline at the request of the grantee.
§ 1917.18 Log handling. ( a ) The employer shall ensure that structures (bunks) used to contain logs have rounded corners and rounded structural parts to avoid sling damage.
( b ) Two or more binders or equivalently safe means of containment shall remain on logging trucks and railcars to secure logs during movement of the truck or car within the terminal. During unloading, logs shall be prevented from moving while binders are being removed.
( c ) Logs shall be hoisted by two slings or by other gear designed for safe hoisting.
( d ) Logs placed adjacent to vehicle curbs on the dock shall not be over one tier high unless placed in bunks or so stacked as not to roll or otherwise create a hazard to employees.
( e ) Before logs are slung up from the dock, they shall be stably supported to prevent spreading and to allow passage of slings beneath the load. When bunks or similar retaining devices are used, no log shall be higher than the stanchions or retaining members of the device.
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.55 Second and subsequent notifications. ( a ) In accordance with guidelines established by the Chief Financial Officer, the responsible agency head (or designee) shall send progressively stronger second and subsequent demands for payment, if payment or other appropriate response is not received within the time specified by the initial demand. Unless a response to the first or second demand indicates that a further demand would be futile or the debtor's response does not require rebuttal, the second and subsequent demands shall generally be made at 30-day intervals from the first, and shall state that a 6 percent per annum penalty will be assessed after the debt has been delinquent 90 days, accruing from the date it became delinquent. An agency head (or designee), however, in his or her sole discretion can send second and subsequent demands at shorter intervals. The second and subsequent demands shall identify the amount of interest then accrued on the debt, as well as administrative costs thus far assessed. In determining the timing of the demand letters, agencies should give due regard to the need to act promptly so that, if necessary, the debt may be referred in a timely manner to the Department of Justice for litigation. When the agency head (or designee) deems it appropriate to protect the government's interests (for example, to prevent the statute of limitations 28 U.S.C. 2415, from expiring), written demand may be preceded by other appropriate actions, including immediate referral for litigation.
( b ) Agencies shall also include in their demand letters the notice provisions to debtors required by other regulations of the Labor Department, pertaining to waiver of the indebtedness, administrative offset, salary offset and disclosure of information to credit reporting agencies, to the extent that such inclusion is appropriate and practicable.
[50 FR 5202, Feb. 6, 1985, as amended at 85 FR 83817, Dec. 23, 2020]