alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40855 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. G E R A R D O G O N Z A L E Z -G A M E Z , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 1 - CR- 3 8 7 - ALL B ef ore W IE N E R , B E N AV ID E S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederalP u bl i c D efen der app oi n t ed to represent G erardo G on zal ezG a m e z (G o n z a le z ) h a s m o v e d fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w a n d h a s file d a b r ie f in ac c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . G on zal ez ha s not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of th e record an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o non f

rivo lou s i ssue f

or app eal . A ccor di n gl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f or l eave t o w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom f u rt h er r espon sibi l i t i es h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
PETITION TO: SECRETARY THOMAS E. PEREZ, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Millions of Americans like me are counting on our 461(k) plans and individual retirement accounts for a secure
financial future —- and we've worked hard to build and grow our savings. These plans often involve complex
financial decisions, so many of us have to use investment professionals for guidance. Loopholes in the current
law make it easy for some on Wall Street to take anvantage of hardworking Americans and line their own
pockets with our retirement savings. Last year alorie, hidden fees, unfair risk, and bad investment advice
reduced Americans’ retirement savings by as much as $17 billion. It’s time to close this loophole and ensure a
high standard that holds anyone who gives financial advice genuinely accountable for helping us choose the best
* investments. As one of your constituents, I’m counting on you to work to close the loophole now.

ELOLSSXXXU 4615618493
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-14-0268

SAT Date: 1/31/2014

Print Date: 3/4/2014

Related cases:

 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 1 1 PMN

2 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ; PMN negl; Hyd Pdt moderate - rapid

Keywords:

 Keywords: ONCO; MUTA; SENS-L,S; IRR-L,MM

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-14-0268

FATE: Estimations for hydrolysis product amine MW 354 C18H30N2O5

log Kow = 1.48 (E)

log Koc = 2.30 (E)

log Fish BCF = 0.65 (E)

log Fish BAF = 0.17 (E)

PMN Substance: Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

S = Reacts

Hydrolysis Half-life = min

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)
BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = PMN 99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt low

PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = PMN negl; Hyd Pdt moderate - rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is expected to be poor all routes; expected to 

react, especially in the lung. Concern for oncogenicity based on [polymeric MDI, Mn 

= 400, 70% <500, 90% <1000]; mutagenicity based on respiratory and dermal 

sensitization and lung and mucous membrane irritation based on the isocyanate moiety.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 117.9 Carbamate Esters

daphnid 48-h LC50 96.9 Anilines, Hindered

green algal 96-h EC50 78.8 Carbamate Esters

fish _ chronic value 12.2 Carbamate Esters

daphnid _ chronic 

value

11.0 Anilines, Hindered

algal _ chronic 

value

19.7 Carbamate Esters

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on the hydrolysis products and the SARs 

for carbamate esters, hindered anilines; SAR chemical class = carbamate esters, hindered 

anilines; MW 380; log Kow 1.5 (EPI, amine); liquid with unknown mp (P); S = reacts (P); 

effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; 

hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1000

SARs Carbamate Esters, Hindered 

Anilines

SAR Class Carbamate Esters, Hindered 

Anilines

Ecotox Category Anilines
Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
EXHIBIT 10.16


 


Yucheng Schedules


 


1.             Detailed information with respect to Sihitech Company
Limited (“Sihitech”).


 


2.             Detailed information with respect to Beijing e-Channels
Century Technology Co., LTD. (“e-Channels”).


 


3.             List of Vendor Accounts.


 


4.             Allocation of Purchase Price to Vendors.


 


5.             Allocation of Yucheng Stock to Sihitech and e-Channels.


 


6.             Sihitech and e-Channels stock holdings.


 


7.             Consents and Approvals.


 


8.             Licenses, Permits, Etc.


 


9.             Financial Statements.


 


10.           Real Property.


 


11.           Non-Real Estate Leases.


 


12.           Inventory.


 


13.           Contracts, Obligations and Commitments.


 


14.           Intellectual Property.


 


15.           Other Intellectual Property Rights.


 


16.           Software.


 


17.           Out-Bound Licenses.


 


18.           In-Bound Licenses.


 


19.           Royalties.


 


20.           Absence of Certain Changes.


 


21.           Employee Plans; Labor Matters.


 

















 


22.           Related Transactions.


 


23.           Litigation.


 


24.           Settled Litigation.


 


25.           Capitalization of Yucheng.


 


26.           Unaudited Balance Sheet of China Unistone.


 


27.           Amendments to Articles of Association of Sihitech and
e-Channels.


 


28.           Legal Opinion from China Unistone and Yucheng’s legal
counsel.


 


29.           Legal Opinion from Vendors’ legal counsel.


 


2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE MARIA MERAZ-VARGAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10155

D.C. No. 4:09-cr-02817-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Jose Maria Meraz-Vargas appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10155

Meraz-Vargas contends that the district court erred by applying an erroneous

standard for granting a departure or variance. He also contends that the district

court failed to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The

record belies these contentions.

Meraz-Vargas next contends that the district court erred by failing to award

a third point for acceptance of responsibility. This argument fails because MerazVargas has not shown that the government’s refusal to move for the third point was

arbitrary or based on an unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Johnson,

581 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Meraz-Vargas finally contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable because the district court did not give sufficient weight to mitigating

factors and failed to grant a departure or variance on the ground that the

seriousness of his prior conviction was overstated or on any other basis. In light of

the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), the within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th

Cir. 2008) (failure to grant a departure is reviewed as part of the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 29.924 May a Tribe appeal the Department's decision to terminate a compact or funding agreement?

A Tribe may appeal the Department's decision to terminate a compact or funding agreement to the Department's Office of Hearings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                         779,436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               295,326
<PP&E>                                       6,016,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                 172,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,919,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          193,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,725,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,919,468
<SALES>                                        833,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,001,198
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  502,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               297,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                201,102
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            201,102
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   201,102
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.06
        

</TABLE>
#### § 222.1 What is the purpose of this regulation?

The purpose of this part is to provide for safety at public highway-rail grade crossings by requiring locomotive horn use at public highway-rail grade crossings except in quiet zones established and maintained in accordance with this part.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0796.html[7/21/2015 1:05:18 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-jmwy

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0796

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Bradley Chamberlain

General Comment

Please understand I do not require the local, state, or federal government's assistance or direction on how to

 spend my hard earned money. How I spend money from my 401K and IRA is my decision and responsibility to

 manage as I see fitting my needs at that time. Do not make decisions on how I use my money, that is my

 responsibility.
#### Delan Hoffman, *Respondent, v.*Lewis E. Fellows and another, *Executors, etc., Appellants.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### § 236.721 Circuit, control.

An electrical circuit between a source of electric energy and a device which it operates.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0501.html[7/20/2015 3:54:47 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-wjhv

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0501

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Raleigh Atkinson

General Comment

I am smart enough to settle my OWN RETIREMENT ! 

Leave me & my retirement ALONE !!!
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, October 25, 1995 (134), Para 134.18 Adjournment]
[Page 1595]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.134.18  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. SOLOMON, pursuant to the special order agreed to on 
October 24, 1995, at 1 o'clock and 3 minutes a.m., Thursday, October 26 
(legislative day of Wednesday, October 25), 1995, the House adjourned 
until 9 o'clock a.m. today.
```
Honorable Frank Wright 

County Auditor 

Fannin County 

Bonham, Texas 

Bear Sir: opinion No. O-2473 

Re: Is the county liable for parsonal 

Injuries of road hands received while 

employed by the county? 

Your recant request for an opinion of this departmsnt on the above stated 

Puastion has bean received. 

With reference to your Puestion we call your attention to 0~3 opinions 

Boa. O-n9 and o-2136. Opinlou Bo. O-779 holds that; 

"It is not the duty of the county or of the road 

precinct to carry employer's liability insurance for 

the protection of road worhmen of the county." 

Opinion No. O-2136 deals with the question of whether or not the Commissioners 'court has the right and authority to pay a claim for damages 

resulting from the death of an employee of the county in a collision 

while on his way to work for the county. The opinion holds that the 

I I__..~ commissioners' court cannot legally pay the claim. 

We are enclosing copies of the above mentioned opinions for your convenience. 

We quote in part from the case of Bryan vs. Liberty County, 299 SW303-4 

as follows: 

" . . . .It has long been the law of Texas that a county is not 

liable in damages for personal injuries sustained by one in 

consequence of the tortioua or negligent acts of its agents, 

servants and employees unless such lfability be created by 

statute, either in express terms or by implication. Heigel 

vs. Wichita County, 84 Tex. 39, 19 SW 562, 31 Am. St. Rep. 

63; Walton ~5~ Travis County, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 525, 24 SW 

352; Crause vs. Harris County, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 375, 44 SW 

616; Riley vs. Coleman County (Tex. Civ. App.) 181 SW 743;, 

Har$:vs. Hafris County [Tex. Civ. ApP.)?44~~SW 1103:~Harris 

County vs. Darhart, 115 Tex. 449, 283 gf 139. Au these ~, 

authorities sustain the counter'proposition advanced by the 
Honorable Frank Wright, Page #2 (O-2473) 

defendant here that a county is not liable in damages for 

personal injuries negligently inflicted by the county'6 

agents, servants and employees, in the absence of a statute 

creating such liability in express term or by implication.* 

There is no statute creating such liability in express terms or by 

implication, making the county liable for personal injuries of road 

hands received while employed by the county. 

In view of the foregoing authorities, your question is respectfully 

answered in the negative. 

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry, we are 

Very truly yours 

ATPORHEP GEXEFiALOFTEXAS 

a/ Ardall Williama 

BY 

Ardall Williams 

Assistant 

AW:AW-ldw 

APPROVED ~08 27, 1940 

s/ WALD c. MANN 

ATTORNEX GE3ERALOF TEXAS 

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY B, W. B. 

CHAIRMAW
**EXHIBIT
12.1**
  **FIRSTENERGY
CORP.**
 
 **CONSOLIDATED
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**
 
  **Year
      Ended December 31,****2000**
    
    **2001**
    
    **2002**
    
    **2003**
    
    **2004*****(Dollars
      in thousands)*****EARNINGS
      AS DEFINED IN REGULATION S-K:**Income before
      extraordinary items
    
    $
    598,970
    
    $
    654,946
    
    $
    618,385
    
    $
    424,249
    
    $
    873,779Interest and
      other charges, before reduction for
      amounts
      capitalized
    
    
    556,194
    
    
    591,192
    
    
    980,344
    
    
    841,280
    
    
    692,358Provision for
      income taxes
    
    
    376,802
    
    
    474,457
    
    
    514,134
    
    
    407,524
    
    
    670,922Interest
      element of rentals charged to income (a)
    
    
    271,471
    
    
    258,561
    
    
    246,416
    
    
    247,222
    
    
    248,499Earnings as
      defined
    
    $
    1,803,437
    
    $
    1,979,156
    
    $
    2,359,279
    
    $
    1,920,275
    
    $
    2,485,558**FIXED
      CHARGES AS DEFINED IN REGULATION S-K:**Interest
      expense
    
    $
    493,473
    
    $
    519,131
    
    $
    904,697
    
    $
    798,911
    
    $
    670,945Subsidiaries’
      preferred stock dividend requirements
    
    
    62,721
    
    
    72,061
    
    
    75,647
    
    
    42,369
    
    
    21,413Adjustments
      to subsidiaries’ preferred stock dividends
      to state on a
      pre-income tax basis
    
    
    32,098
    
    
    41,349
    
    
    28,426
    
    
    22,519
    
    
    16,442Interest
      element of rentals charged to income (a)
    
    
    271,471
    
    
    258,561
    
    
    246,416
    
    
    247,222
    
    
    248,499Fixed charges
      as defined
    
    $
    859,763
    
    $
    891,102
    
    $
    1,255,186
    
    $
    1,111,021
    
    $
    957,299**CONSOLIDATED
      RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED**
      **CHARGES**
    
    
    2.10
    
    
    2.22
    
    
    1.88
    
    
    1.73
    
    
    2.60
  ___________________
 
 (a)  Includes the
interest element of rentals where determinable plus 1/3 of rental expense where
no readily defined interest element can be determined.
Exhibit 99.3



[LOGO]

BERGER HOLDINGS, LTD.

805 Pennsylvania Blvd., Feasterville, PA 19053



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



BERGER HOLDINGS, LTD. REPORTS

FIRST QUARTER RESULTS



Philadelphia, PA, May 15, 2003.Berger Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: BGRH). Berger Holdings, Ltd. reported a net loss of $271,867 for
the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as compared to net income of $605 for the quarter ended March 31, 2002. Revenue for the first quarter ended March 31, 2003 was $8,783,626 versus $9,853,171 for the comparable prior period. First quarter sales were
significantly impacted by the recent severe winter.



Mr. Joseph
F. Weiderman, CEO, President and COO of the Company, stated, Management is cautiously optimistic that the severity of the past winter will create sales opportunities for improving performance during the remainder of 2003.



|                                                   |  | QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31:
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                                                   |  | 2003                   
|Net sales                                          |  | $                      
|(Loss) income from operations                      |  | $                      
|Interest expense                                   |  | $                      
|(Loss) income before income taxes (benefit)        |  | $                      
|Income taxes (benefit)                             |  | $                      
|Net (loss) income                                  |  | $                      
|Basic weighted average common shares outstanding   |  |                        
|Basic (loss) earnings per share                    |  | $                      
|Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding |  |                        
|Diluted (loss) earnings per share                  |  | $                      



Berger Holdings, Ltd. is
the parent company of Berger Bros Co., which was founded in 1874, and is a manufacturer of a complete line of roof drainage products, specializing in copper as well as residential and commercial snow guards. All of the Companys products are
used in new construction, remodeling, and renovation markets.



Contact: Berger Holdings, Ltd.

Francis E. Wellock, Jr., EVP and CFO



Phone:    (215) 355-1200 Ext. 122



Forward-looking statements in this release are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Investors are cautioned that actual
results may differ substantially from such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve risk and uncertainties including but not limited to, continued acceptance of the Companys products in the marketplace, competitive
factors, new products and technological changes, the Companys dependence upon third-party suppliers and other risks detailed in the Companys periodic reports filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



##########
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0835.html[7/21/2015 3:40:13 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-251d

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0835

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Dean Dumais

General Comment

I am really not certain this matters, my comment that is, but it should. You, the government, should really

 downsize. You can start by dropping the idea with even discussing my money I've invested. My family has

 planned and will continue to do so. This may seem a surprise to you, but we don't need you or want you to

 mange any aspect of our retirement. We are doing just fine and we are the ones to control our retirement monies.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Anton io, Texas

January 17, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00023

- CV

Robert THOMPSON

, Appellant

v.

Robert NIETO

, Appellee

From the County Court a t Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CV08856 Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Pending before the court is a motion for writ of possession filed by appellant. The motion is DENIED. Any issues raised on appeal regarding possession will be resolved after the complete appellate record is filed and the issues are fully briefed.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on t his 17th day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
#### Adolph Sternfield and others, Respondents, v. Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order reveled, without costs, motion granted.