alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00820-CR

Jose Isabel MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CRU-010D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED June 17, 2015.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### § 4.4 Deputy Postmaster General.

The appointment and role of the Deputy Postmaster General are described at 39 U.S.C. 202(d), 203. The Deputy Postmaster General shall act as Postmaster General during the Postmaster General's absence or disability, and when a vacancy exists in the office of Postmaster General. The Governors set the compensation and benefits of the Deputy Postmaster General, subject to 39 U.S.C. 1003(a) and 3686.
§ 952.8 Service. ( a ) Where Respondent's mailing address is within the United States, the Recorder shall cause a notice of docketing and answer due date (the “Notice”), a copy of these rules of practice, and a copy of the complaint to be transmitted to Complainant who shall serve those documents upon Respondent or his or her agent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Service shall be complete upon mailing. A receipt acknowledging delivery of the notice shall be secured from Respondent or his or her agent and forwarded to the Recorder, U.S. Postal Service, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078, to become a part of the official record. In the absence of a receipt, Complainant shall file an Affidavit of Service, along with returned undelivered mail, or other appropriate evidence of service, with the Recorder. In the alternative Complainant may, in its discretion, effectuate service by hand on Respondent and file an Affidavit of Service with the Recorder.
( b ) Where the only address against which Complainant seeks relief is outside the United States, a copy of the complaint, the tentative decision, and a copy of these rules of practice shall be sent by international mail, return receipt requested, by the Recorder to the address cited in the complaint. A written statement by the Recorder noting the time and place of mailing shall be accepted as evidence of service in the event a signed return receipt is not returned to the Recorder.
#### § 3.05-30 Sector New York Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone.

Sector New York's office is located in New York City, NY. The boundaries of Sector New York's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone start near the south shore of Long Island at latitude 40°35′24′′ N, longitude 73°46′36′′ W proceeding southeast to a point at latitude 38°28′00′′ N, longitude 70°11′00′′ W; thence northwest to a point near the New Jersey coast at latitude 40°18′00′′ N, longitude 73°58′40′′ W; thence west along latitude 40°18′00′′ N to longitude 74°30′30′′ W; thence northwest to the intersection of the New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania boundaries near Tristate at latitude 41°21′27′′ N, longitude 74°41′42′′ W; thence northwest along the east bank of the Delaware River to latitude 42°00′00′′ N, longitude 75°21′28′′ W; thence east to longitude 74°39′00′′ W; thence north to latitude 43°36′00′′ N; thence east through Whitehall, NY, to the New York-Vermont border at latitude 43°33′03′′ N, longitude 73°15′01′′ W; thence south along the New York boundary to latitude 41°01′30′′ N, longitude 73°40′00′′ W; thence south to a point near the southern shore of Manursing Island at latitude 40°58′00′′ N, longitude 73°40′00′′ W; thence southeasterly to latitude 40°52′30′′ N, longitude 73°37′12′′ W; thence south to latitude 40°40′00′′ N, longitude 73°40′00′′ W; thence southwest to the point of origin.

[USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36319, July 2, 2007]
* 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. 01-30620 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ULYSSES S. GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-60055-2

- - - - - - - - - - December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINGBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender, appointed to represent Ulysses S. Grant, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Grant has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous appellate issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6233** 

WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 02033

- DCN )

Submitted : May 3, 2012 Decided: May 16, 2012

Before WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Wesley Edward Smith, III , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wesley Edward Smith, III , seeks to appeal the dist rict court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstr ating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument be cause the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# San

# loaquinValley 

# I'I HEALTHY

# AIR LIVINGAIR POLLUTIflI{ CflI{TRflL DISTRICT

March 

### 26,2014 Mr. 

### Mike Guzzetta, Manager Rule Evaluations Section California 

### Air Resources Board P.O. Box 

### 2815 Sacramento, 

### CA 95812
Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

### Attached is

### the Rule

### Action Package 

### for Rule 4307 (Boilers, Steam Generators, 

### and Process 

### Heaters-2.O MMBtu/hr 

### to 5.0 MMBtu/hr), 

### adopted by

### the District's 

### Governing Board 

### on May 

### 19,2011. We request 

### the California 

### Air Resources Board (ARB)

### transmitthis rule andthe appropriate documentation to

### the United 

### States Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA) as a 

### SIP revision. lncluded with 

### this Rule 

### Action Package arethe

### following attachments: 

## 1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 

## 2. ARB 

### APCD/AQMD Rule Evaluation Form 

## 3. Clean Copy 

### of Rule 4307 

## 4. Underline/Strikeout Copy 

### of Rule 4307 

## 5. Governing Board Resolution 

## 6. Governing Board Memo 

## 7. Evidence 

### of Public Hearing 

## 8. Final 

### Staff Report 

### withappendices lf

### you have any 

### questions, please 

### contact Chelsea Gonzales at (559) 230-6100 

### or by

### e-mail at 

### Chelsea.Gonzales@valleyair.org. The District thanks 

### you and your staff 

### foryour assistance.



### of Strategies 

### and Incentives 

### Attachments
Seyed Sadredin Exscutirlo 0irectorlAir P0llution C0ntr0l 0fficor

lllorthern ßogion 4800 Enterprise Way Modesto, CA 95356-8718 TsL (2091 557'6400 FAX: (209) 557.6475 Gontrol Begion (Main Oflicel

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 93726.0244 Tel: (559) 230.6000 FAX: {559) 230.6061 Southern Region 34946 Flyover Court Bakersfield, CA 93308.9725 Tel: 6ô1.392.5500 FAX: 661.392-5585 www.valleyair.org www.healthyairliving.com Printod@@ycMp.pe. al
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL
- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0200n.06
No. 15

- 1884 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. XAVIER VELVIE MCCARTY , Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: GUY, BOGGS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Xavier Velvie McCarty appeals the sentence imposed after he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) , an d theft of firearm s from a licensed dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(m)

. The charges arose from an incide nt in which McCarty broke into a building occupied by a licensed firearms dealer, smashed a glass display case, and moved numerous firearms from t he case into a duffel bag.
P olice arrived at the building during these acts , McCarty abandoned the duffel bag , and fled through a window . H e was captured nearby

. Pursuant to a plea agreement, McCarty pleaded guilty to the felon

- in

- possession charge

. The district court determined that McCarty’s total offense level was 23, which included a two

level increase under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) because the firearms were stolen. Based on hisNo. 15

- 1884

United States v. McCarty

- 2

- total offense level of 23 and criminal history category of IV, McCar ty’s guidelines range of imprisonment was 70 to 87 months. The district court sentenc ed him to 70 months in prison. On appeal, McCarty argues that the district court erred by applying the two

- level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A). He contends that th e firearms in question were not stolen because h e did not remove them from the building . McCarty also argues that, under the rule of lenity, the two

- level enhancement should not apply because the meaning of “stolen” in § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) is ambiguous

. We re view the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Jackson , 401 F.3d 747, 748 (6th Cir. 2005)

. Section 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) provides for a two

- level enhancement if an illegally possessed firearm “was stolen.”
McCart y waived the argument that the firearms were not stolen by conceding during the sentencing hearing that the firearms “ gained the character of being stolen ” when McCarty removed them from the display case

. See United States v. Priddy , 808 F.3d 676, 681 (6t h Cir. 2015). And b ecause McCarty did not raise his claim based on the rule of lenity in the district court, it is barred by the appellate

- waiver provision in his plea agreement, which waived his right to raise on appeal any challenge to the district court’s determination of the guidelines range that was not raised during sentencing. See United States v. Hockenberry , 730 F.3d 645, 671 (6th Cir. 2013)

. Accordingly, we AFFIRM McCarty’s sentence.
ex_151318.htm


 


 


Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO


CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of October 31, 2019 by and between Aegion Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and [___________________] (“Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, that certain Change in Control Severance Agreement dated as of [_____________________] (the “Agreement”) was entered into by and between the Company and Executive; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 9.7 of the Agreement authorizes the Company and Executive to agree to modifications to the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties to this Amendment desire to modify the Agreement to the extent set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:


 


1.     Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Agreement.


 


2.     The following modification shall be made to the Agreement:


 


(a)     The language set forth in Article I, Section (n), Sub-Section (III) of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“a reduction by the Company or the acquiring company of the Officer’s base salary or annual target bonus opportunity in effect as of 90 calendar days prior to the Change in Control;”


 


(b)     The language set forth in Article I, Section (n), Sub-Section (iv) of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“a  reduction by the Company or the acquiring company (measured by value) of the aggregate long-term incentive opportunity provided to the Officer in effect as of 90 calendar days prior to the Change in Control, or a material reduction in the aggregate employee benefits provided to the Officer in effect as of 90 calendar days prior to the Change in Control;”


 


4.      The Agreement is modified only as expressly provided in this Amendment and shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, which together shall constitute the executed original.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on this 31st day of October 2019.


 


 


 


AEGION CORPORATION


 


 


 


___________________________


By: Phillip D. Wright, Chair of Compensation Committee


 


 


 


___________________________


[Executive]
E Pfl -fIa'oPPT-~ opS -,003,3 

David Brooks /DC/USEPA/US 

04/23/2008 11 :09 AM 

Hi Mike/Catherine : 

~ ~p R4- 

To Mike Mattheisen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Catherine 

Roman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Mark Townsend/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob 

Boethling/DC/USEPA/US, opreskodm@ornl .gov 

bcc 

Subject Urea, Reaction Products with Formaldehyde (Cas No. 

68611-64-3) 

We have reviewed our contractor's report and are in agreement with their evaluation of information 

submitted for Urea, Reaction Products with Formaldehyde (Cas No. 68611-64-3) and its supporting 

substance (urea) . This report covers health and aquatic toxicity endpoints . 

The Health and Aquatic information were reviewed and found to be in compliance with the test 

guidelines specified by the test rule (71 FR 13708, March 16, 2006). Therefore, these studies 

should be considered as satisfying the test rule requirements for the following tests : 

Acute Mammalian toxicity 

Genetic toxicity (gene mutation, chromosomal aberration) 

Repeated-dose toxicity 

Reproductive toxicity 

Developmental toxicity 

Acute toxicity to fish, invertebrates (daphnia) and plants (algae) 

-T l 

r 

We, as well as EETD, accept the submittor's response that no free (very low ppm levelsW 

formaldehyde is present in the reaction product, and further that no free (very low ppm levels) 

formaldehyde is subsequently formed as a result of the environmental or biological degradation 

of the product (See EETD's response below). 

The re vised TFl submission is OK. On the formaldehyde question, any formaldehyde that might be 

formed as a product or intermediate of biodegradation or hydrolysis of the parent materials would be 

biodegraded so fast that it most likely would never be detectable even by the most sensitive methods. 

Probably the reason the submission does not say it will not form is that this simply has not been 

experimentally confirmed. What l am saying is that it is not an issue. Even if formaldehyde were in the 

pathway or even an ultimate product, it would be biodegraded virtually as fast as it was formed. 

Robert Boethling 

Exposure Assessment Branch 

US EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (7406M) 

Washington, DC 20460 

202-564-8533 (P) 

202-564-8892 (F) 

If you require any other information, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

David Brooks 

Risk Assessment Division (7403M) 

High Production Volume Chemical Branch 

EPA East Room 6308N 

(202) 564-8603 

CONTAINS NO CBI 

r 

LJ1 

3oz y ~~o h
January 17, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JAMIE ALBERTO IBARRA, Appellant

NO. 14-12-01152-CR

NO. 14-12-01153-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
{"id":27866,"date":"2022-07-11T16:18:45","date_gmt":"2022-07-11T20:18:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/?page_id=27866"},"modified":"2022-07-11T16:18:45","modified_gmt":"2022-07-11T20:18:45","slug":"voting-membership","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/cofo\/voting-membership\/","title":{"rendered":"Voting Membership"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Voting Membership <\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>As defined in the COFO Charter, \u201cThe primary governing body of The Coalition is the voting membership, which shall be composed of Ombuds working for federal agencies who practice according to the values cited above when performing ombuds duties. If an agency has more than one Ombudsman (i.e. a sub-agency or division by subject matter or agency program), each Ombudsman (such as an associate and an assistant Ombuds) may be members of the voting membership.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>COFO Voting Members 2020<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Voting Membership As defined in the COFO Charter, \u201cThe primary governing body of The Coalition is the voting membership, which shall be composed of Ombuds working for federal agencies who practice according to the values cited above when performing ombuds duties. If an agency has more than one Ombudsman (i.e. a sub-agency or division by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":242,"featured_media":0,"parent":27826,"menu_order":5,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"side-navigation.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27866"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/242"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27866"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27866\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27867,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27866\/revisions\/27867"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27826"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37399-37400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14960]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice

[[Page 37400]]

is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1 GRB 4 (01).
    Date: June 16, 2000.
    Time: 8:00 am to 2:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites Hotel, 1300 Concourse Drive, Linthicum, 
Maryland 21090.
    Contact Person: William E. Elzinga, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Room 647, 6707 Democracy 
Boulevard, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-8895.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 8, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-14960 Filed 6-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 80.1450 Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, HI.

A line drawn from the seaward extremity of Nawiliwili Harbor Breakwater Light to 21°57′23.8′′ N., 159°20′52.7′′ W. (Kukii Point Light).

[USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38431, July 7, 2014]