alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00865- CR

Lam ar Lovett , Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 299 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 10- 9040 94, H ONO RAB LE CHARLES F . B AIRD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury convicted ap p el l ant L amar L ovett of attempted capital murder, ag g rava ted assault wit h a deadly we ap o n , an d t wo counts of agg rava ted s exual assault. See Tex. Penal C ode Ann. §§ 19.03(a) (2), 22.02(b)( 1), 22.021(a) (1)( A)(i) (West 2011). The jury assessed punishment at seventy y ear s’ imprisonment for at t em p t ed capital murder, twenty y ear s’ imprisonment for ag g rava ted assault with a deadly wea pon, and fifty y ear s’ imprisonment for eac h count of ag g rava ted sexual assault. Appellant’s court-a ppoi n t ed at torney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by

a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua t i o n o f t h e rec ord demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); G a r n e r v . S ta te , 3 0 0 S. W. 3 d 7 6 3 , 7 6 6 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e a ls o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U
. S. 7 5 , 86–87 (1988).Appellant rec eived a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his rig ht to examine

th e a p p e ll a te r e c o r d a n d to f il e a p r o s e b r ie f

. S e e A n d e r s , 3 8 6 U
. S. a

t 7 4 4 ; G a r n e r , 3 0 0 S. W. 3 d a

t 7 6 6
. We have rec eived two written response s from the appellant—a pro se brief and a supplemental pro se br ief. We h a

v e c o n d u c te d a n in d e p e n d e n

t r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d , in c lu d in g a p p e ll a n t c o u n s e l’ s brief and appellant’ s written response s, and find no reve rsible er ror. See A nders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agr ee with counsel that the rec ord prese nts no arg uably meritorious g rounds for revie w and t h e ap p ea l is frivolous. The point s of error raised in appellant’ s pro se briefs have no arg uable merit. See G arner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe , 178 S.W .3d at 827.

Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted. The judgme nt of conviction is aff irmed.

_______________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Affir med Filed: Aug ust 1, 2012 Do Not Publish

2
November 26, 1965

No. 69633.

Appeal 5218.

#### United States *v.*Christensen Diamond Products Co.

O.D. 2537. Appeal dismissed October 18, 1965.
From: jujuliston@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:29:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Judy Liston

Des Moines, IA 50315
No. 62229.

#### M. D. Orum Company v. United States,

protest 313753-K (Milwaukee).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures the same in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 57682, the merchandise was held dutiable under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified, *infra,*for articles, not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of lead, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, as follows: The articles imported prior to October 1, 1951, at 2 cents per pound, but not less than 15 percent nor more than 45 percent ad valorem, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), and the merchandise imported on or after October 1, 1951, at 2 cents per pound, but not less than 15 percent nor more than 30 percent ad valorem, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52820).
Before the Second Division,

November 26, 1968

No. P68/499.

protest 58/18552 (New York).

#### S. S. Kresge Co. *v.*United States,

*669Rao, C. J.

In accordance witib stipulation of counsel that tibe merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of battery-operated horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *S. Hiller & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 79, C.D. 3082), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Number of 

water-budget 

subareas

Area 

(square 

miles)

Mean recharge as 

a percentage of 

water input1

Standard 

deviation of 

mean recharge 

as a percentage 

of water input

Open native forest (outside fog zone) 43,212 196.51 34.5 20.4

Closed native forest (outside fog zone) 23,708 130.06 29.4 19.2

Alien and mixed forest (outside fog zone) 38,492 127.53 12.9 17.0

Open native forest (inside fog zone) 42,869 427.96 41.1 18.6

Closed native forest (inside fog zone) 26,420 344.14 44.8 15.5

Alien and mixed forest (inside fog zone) 6,611 38.87 36.2 26.3

Shrubland 63,545 636.61 57.0 20.2

Agriculture: Macadamia 5,043 30.39 35.4 17.4

Coffee 693 1.90 45.3 8.1

Diversified 29,812 99.81 50.0 22.9

Forest (eucalyptus) 480 1.61 19.2 6.4

Fallow/Grassland 2,945 8.62 28.8 6.5

Golf course 1,387 4.22 25.3 21.6

Low-intensity developed 37,385 42.88 34.5 23.5

High-intensity developed 15,290 11.26 57.1 14.0

Grassland 84,598 835.43 23.8 25.8

Sparsely vegetated 44,552 1,089.89 56.2 15.3

Wetland vegetation 139 0.95 34.5 13.8

Water body2 624 1.01 – –

2

Recharge was not calculated using the water-budget model (see USGS SIR 2011–5078, p. 28).

Table S-1. Estimated groundwater recharge and recharge as a percentage of water input for baseline conditions 

on the Island of Hawai‘i, compiled by land-cover type (refer to USGS SIR 2011–5078).

[–, not applicable; water input is defined as the sum of mean annual rainfall, fog, and irrigation; baseline conditions are 

defined as 2008 land cover and mean annual rainfall for the period 1916–83; although standard deviation is used in the table 

as a measure of the spread of recharge as a percentage of water input, its use is not meant to imply that the data are 

normally distributed; reported mean recharge is an area-weighted average; no distinction is made between fog and non-fog 

conditions for shrubland, coffee, and eucalyptus forest plantations; because of rounding, the area for each land-cover 

category may not match the sum of the areas for that land-cover category from tables S-2 through S-10]

Land-cover description

1

Recharge as a percentage of water input was calculated for each subarea using the formula: 

[(recharge - direct recharge)/(rainfall + fog + irrigation)] x 100. Values for each subarea in a particular land-cover category were then 

multiplied by the area and summed, and that sum was then divided by the total area of that category to obtain a mean. Direct recharge is 

described in USGS SIR 2011–5078.
From: mewuite@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:30:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Wuite

Yucca Valley, CA 92286
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4699-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California (FEMA-4699-DR), dated April 3, 2023, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued July 14, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective July 10, 2023.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-21003 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
James Turner/RS/USEPA/US 

- 04/06/2006 03:23 PM 

To Rebamburg@aol.com 

cc Shawn Ghose/R6/USEPA/US@EPA 

bcc 

Subject Re: Rogers Road Site Property Description[l] 

Bob, our Remedial Project Manager tells me that your surveying firm The Bond Company (?) has finished 

the new survey of the Rogers Road property (Ex. A), and it has been provided to your office. Also, when 

we last exchanged messages, you were waiting on Frederick Gentry to approve the Description of Uses 

(Ex. B), We are having a visit from EPA headquarters folks tomorrow who are querying us on the status of 

Institutional Controls, I left you a phone message earlier. Please give me a call and let's discuss the 

status of this. Thanks and take care, 

James L, Turner 

Senior Attorney 

Office of Regional Counsel (6RC-S) V 

U.S. EPA Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

E-Mail: Turner.James@epa.gov 

Ph: (214)665-3159 

Fax:(214)665-6460 

Rebamburg@aol.com 

9050343 

lllilllllllillll 

Rebamburg@aol.com 

01/26/2006 04:51 AM To James Turner/R6/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc 

Subject Re: Rogers Road Site Property Description 

Jim: 

I'll have Jay Whisker, our City Engineer, review and plot it out to insure accuracy. I'd made an assumption 

that since it had been used by the Gentrys' in their Quiet Title action that it was accurate, but after Jay 

reviews it, I may have one of the local title companies run a review on it just to verify courthouse records, 

I'll let you know how we progress. 

Thanks, 

Bob 

City of Jacksonville, Arkansas 

By: Robert E, Bamburg 

City Attorney 

PO,.Box 5913 

Jacksonville, AR 72078 

501-982-6303 (Phone) 

501-982-2280 (Fax) 

rebanhburq@aol,com 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email 

and any attachments contain confidential 

and privileged information intended solely 

for the intended recipient. If you are not 

the intended recipient, please do not 

review, retransmit, copy, or convert any of 

this information. If received in error, 

please notify me and delete this message. 

002305
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencyShares® South African Rand Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended October 31, 2010, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arruda, Chief Financial Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Trust.

Date: March 10, 2011



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JOSEPH ARRUDA                                    
|Joseph Arruda*                                       
|Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Joseph Arruda is signing in his capacity as the principal financial officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the
Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10249

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JOE GARY RIVAS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CR-42-1

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Joe Gary Rivas, Jr., federal prisoner # 00278-180 and proceeding pro se,

is serving a sentence of life imprisonment, imposed following his conviction of 

conspiring to import five kilograms or more of cocaine and 1,000 kilograms or 

more of marihuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. In the matter that gives 

rise to this appeal, Rivas filed a successive motion for a reduction in his 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 26, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10249 Document: 00515051177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2019
No. 19-10249

2

sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and based on Amendment 782 to 

the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion. 

Rivas contends he was eligible for a sentence reduction based on 

Amendment 782 because the amendment reduced his base offense level. 

The denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Generally, we 

review de novo whether a district court has authority to reduce a sentence 

pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th 

Cir. 2010).

At his original sentencing, Rivas’ total offense level was 39, with a

criminal history category VI, resulting in a Guidelines sentencing range of 360 

months to life imprisonment. Although Amendment 782 reduced Rivas’ base 

offense level from 38 to 36, and in turn reduced his total offense level to 37, it 

did not lower his sentencing range; it remains 360 months to life 

imprisonment, as Rivas acknowledges in his brief. Because Amendment 782 

did not have the effect of lowering the applicable Guidelines sentencing range, 

the district court was not authorized to reduce Rivas’ sentence. See

§ 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10249 Document: 00515051177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2019
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20828]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Engineering (#1170) 
(Hybrid).
    Date and Time: November 1, 2023; 10 a.m.-5:30 p.m. (eastern); 
November 2, 2023; 8 a.m.-12:45 p.m. (eastern).
    Place: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314/Hybrid (In 
person and Virtual).
    Additional meeting information, an updated agenda, and registration 
information will be posted at https://www.nsf.gov/eng/advisory.jsp.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Persons: Don Millard, National Science Foundation, 2415 
Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-8300.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel 
on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and 
activities.

Agenda

Wednesday, November 1, 2023; 10 a.m.-5:30 p.m. (eastern)

<bullet> Directorate for Engineering Report
<bullet> NSF Budget Update
<bullet> Partnerships for a Resilient Planet: Opportunities in Clean 
Energy and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
<bullet> Engineering PLUS Alliance
<bullet> Engineering Research Infrastructure
<bullet> Strategic Recommendations for ENG
<bullet> Preparation for Discussion with the Director's Office

Thursday, November 2, 2023; 8 a.m.-12:45 p.m. (eastern)

<bullet> Reports from Advisory Committee Liaisons
<bullet> Revolutionizing Engineering Departments
<bullet> Preparation for Discussion with the Director's Office
<bullet> Perspective from the Director's Office
<bullet> Strategic Recommendations for ENG

    Dated: August 21, 2023.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-20828 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
No. 60502.

#### Haddad & Sons *v.*United States,

protests 215596-K and 228441-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of pearl ladders and strips similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 60159, the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 218 (f), as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, was sustained. The item marked “B,” stipulated to consist of silk scarves or squares similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), were held dutiable at 32)4 percent under paragraph 1210, as modified by T. D. 52739.