alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clyde BARTLETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-261.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 2, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20093

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TROY EUGENE CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-552-1

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

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Troy Eugene Clark appeals his conviction and sentence after

his bench-trial conviction for possession of a firearm by a

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 

Clark’s challenges to his conviction are based on the

constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Clark concedes that his

arguments are foreclosed and that they are being raised to

preserve them for possible further review. Clark’s arguments

challenging his conviction are indeed foreclosed. See United
No. 02-20093

-2-

States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2002); United States v. Gresham, 118

F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Kuban, 94 F.3d

971, 973 (5th Cir. 1996); and United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d

240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Clark also challenges his sentence on the ground that the

district court impermissibly delegated its payment-setting

authority to the Probation Office. Clark did not object to the

cost-payment conditions at sentencing; accordingly, we review the

claim for plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d

160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Clark has failed to

establish plain error. See United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d

363, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Clark’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41154

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICIO ESCOBAR-VILLANUEVA, also known

as Patricio Escobar Cantu,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

 

(M-01-CR-29-3)

July 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patricio Escobar-Villanueva pled guilty to one count of

carjacking and was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment, a

supervised release term of 3 years, a special assessment of $100,

plus restitution in the amount of $18,242.35. He argues that the

district court erred in upwardly adjusting his base offense level,

based on the conduct of indicted coconspirators, and erred in
1 United States v. Hammond, 201 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir. 1999).

calculating the amount of loss attributable to him. We affirm. 

First, Escobar-Villanueva argues that the district court erred

in upwardly adjusting his base defense level based on his

coconspirators’ acts of discharging a firearm, abducting a victim,

and inflicting bodily injury on a victim. He contends that there is

no evidence that he acted in concert with the other indicted

coconspirators, and argues that he should not be held responsible

for their acts. If a defendant undertakes criminal activities

jointly with third parties, he may be responsible for their acts if

the acts were within the scope of that joint activity and were

reasonably foreseeable.1 The facts contained in the Presentencing

Investigation Report, which Escobar-Villaneuva did not contest

below, support the sentencing adjustments made by the district

court. Thus we hold that the district court did not clearly err in

adopting the facts of the PSR and upwardly adjusting EscobarVillaneuva’s sentence for discharging a firearm, abducting a

victim, and inflicting bodily injury on a victim.

Escobar-Villaneuva also argues that the district court erred

in calculating the amount of loss attributable to him by including

a 1992 Ford Explorer in its calculations. There is evidence in the

PSR that Escobar-Villaneuva was himself involved in the carjacking

of the Explorer, and the carjacking of the Explorer was part of the

joint criminal enterprise in which he was involved. The district

court did not clearly err in calculating the loss. AFFIRMED.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 00103

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 00103\00103_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00103\00103_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00103\00103_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00103\00103_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00103\00103_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00103\00103_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00103\00103_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00103\00103_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

00103\Certification Statement Plant ID 00103.pdf Plant certification statement

00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part D3-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part D5-10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part F5-6.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part G 08-18-10 Results.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part G 08-25-10 Results.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part G 09-01-10 Results.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part G 09-08-10 Results.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\Supplemental Documents\00103_Final EPA Copy-Sammis-Part G3-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00103\00103_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00103\00103_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### John Albert MORGAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-510.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 18, 1973.

John Albert Morgan, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee. ■

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### Gerard John SCHAEFER, Jr., Petitioner, v. C. L. (Lanie) NORVELL, Sheriff, Respondent.

No. 73-765.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 27, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
SOUTH CAROLINA - AGENCY CONTACTS

SC FHWA PDC 

Member

FHWA EFL Jacinda Russell Access Program

Manager

Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov 571-434-1543

SC State PDC 

Member

SC Deptartment of 

Transportation

Machael Peterson Chief of Statewide 

Planning

PetersonMM@scdot.org 803-737-1618

SC LPA PDC 

Member

Central Midlands 

Council of 

Government

Reginald Simmons Deputy Executive

Director/Transportation 

Director

rsimmons@centralmidlands.org 803-744-5133

SC FHWA FHWA EFL Lewis Grimm Planning Team Leader Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov 703-404-6289

SC FHWA FHWA SC Division 

Office

Mark Pleasant Community Planner Mark.Pleasant@dot.gov 803-253-3435

SC DOT SC Department of 

Transportation

Miranda Caldwell Obligations 

Management

CaldwellMP@scdot.org 803-737-1386

SC FLMA NPS Lee Edwards Landscape ArchitectInterior Region 2-

South Atlantic Gulf

Lee_Edwards@nps.gov 404-507-5717

SC FLMA FWS Tommy Egland Regional Transportation 

Coordinator

Thomas_egland@fws.gov 503-487-7230

SC FLMA FWS Nathan Beauchamp US Fish and Wildlife

Service Transportation 

Program Analyst

nathan_beauchamp@fws.gov 703-358-2226

SC FLMA USFS Paul Morgan Regional Transportation

Systems Operations EngineerSouthern Region

paul.a.morgan@usda.gov 404-347-1624

SC FLMA DOD (non-USACE) Douglas Briggs Senior Engineer/HNDSDDCTEADouglas.E.Briggs.civ@mail.mil 618-220-5229

SC FLMA DOD (USACE) Amy Cobb Recreation Business Line

Manager

Amy.L.Cobb@usace.army.mil 251-581-4084
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-03-044-CV

T. JORDAN TOWING, INC., D/B/A 	APPELLANT

ADVANTAGE FINANCIAL SERVICES

	V.

SOUTHTRUST BANK, N.A.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 352ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On June 5, 2003, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as required by TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2).  We stated we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant, within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment.  

	Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		

PANEL D:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAY, J.

DELIVERED: August 27, 2003
#### Minnie Watts HATCHER, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. The CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF BEDFORD, VIRGINIA, and The Peoples National Bank of Bedford, Bedford, Virginia, Appellees.

No. 4135.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 7, 1937.

W. R. Saunders, of- Bedford, Va., for appellant.

Oliver & Padgett and Lowry & Burks, all of Bedford, Va., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for appeal dismissed, with costs in accordance with agreement of counsel.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-927.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

FINANCE 

Tropical Forests 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BRAZIL 

Signed at Brasilia August 12, 2010 

with 

Attachments 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 BRAZIL 

 Finance: Tropical Forests 

 Agreement signed at Brasilia August 12, 2010; 

 Entered into force September 27, 2010. 

 With attachments.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1648

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Anthony D. Perkins, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 13, 2008 Filed: March 10, 2009

___________ Before MELLOY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The appellant in this case was sentenced as an armed career criminal. While it appears Mr. Perkins may have two qualifying offenses for armed career criminal status, that is, two robbery convictions, the third qualifying predicate is for auto tampering. Our court has now determined that auto tampering is not a crime of violence for purposes of armed career offender status. See United States v. Williams , 537 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the sentence is reversed and the matter remanded for resentencing in accordance with Williams

.

______________________________
April 29, 2015

Dear DOT:

._·,_ I am writingthis letter concerningthe air service we are currently receiving here in Page, Arizona. Contraryto ourcity councils recommendation to keep Great Lakes Airline, there are many of us here in Page that would like to see a new air service come to our remote location. The air service is so undependable (I understand the pilot shortage) our businesses 

### don't even use the airline. Manyof us driveto Phoenix or Las Vegas in orderto flyto our destination. This is a 600 mile round trip plus motel and food expenses. Last year Iflew outto Wichita, Ks. Myflight was cancelled forThursday so I had to fly out a day early. That was not a big deal. I gotto spend extra time with family. However, this year was a whole different story. Flying Page to Phoenix in March, I double even tripled checked myflight status aweek in advance, 4 days in advance and the day beforetwice, once in the AM and once at 5:00PM. was assured every time myflight was scheduled. At 6:00PM Iget a phone call that my Thursday AM flight was cancelled. I already had confirmed and printed out my boarding pass with my connecting flight in Phoenixto Atlanta, GA. My husband and I drove to Flagstaffat 7:00 PM (130 miles) and spent the night in Flagstaffso I could getto Phoenix and catch my flight. That 150 mile (by land) flight cost us an additional $393.98. The flight from Phoenixto Atlanta was $412.20 round trip! NOPE! Notthe end ofthis story. Myflight from Phoenixto Page with Great Lakes was cancelled coming back. For an additional $85.40 fee for changing myflight with Southwest, Idid make it home. Great Lakes Airline cost me $479.38 more than Ishould have had to spend. They did credit me $77.60 forthe one wayto Phoenix. The city council is concerned with flights only being 9 passenger butthe flight from Phoenixto Page was a 9 passenger plane. In short we really need a reliable air service here in our small town.
Sincerely, Mrs. DeAnna Zimmer
#### Ex Parte Grady LETSON.

77-327.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 31, 1978.

EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, J. David Brow, the Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of Solar Energy Sources Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Solar Energy Sources Inc. for the six month period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Solar Energy Sources Inc.

Dated August 8, 2006.

/s/ J. David Brow                              

J. David Brow

Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

 

 

D/JLM/881031.1
#### Dorothy Hebert ARDOIN et al. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO. et al.

No. 61008.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1977.

In re: American Home Assurance Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 350 So.2d 205.

Writ Denied In Part, Granted In Part. We find no error requiring review by this Court as to any assignment relating to the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants cast; accordingly, writs are denied as to further review of this judgment, including its modification for limited remand by the Court of Appeal.

However, insofar as the applicants urge that erroneous rulings as to the “locality rule” prevented the defendants from secur*708ing a factual determination that the negligence of Dr. James Bozeman also contributed to the injury, we grant the writ to determine whether, for purposes of third-party demands, error was committed by the rulings complained of by Assignments 1, 2, 3 of Docket Nos. 60,992 and 61,008 and by Assignment 2 of Docket No. 61,011, which errors had the effect of depriving the defendants of evidence relevant to a determination of this doctor’s negligence and whether same was a contributory cause of decedent’s death.

The writs are denied as to all other assignments of error urged including the only assignments raised in # 60,993.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27804]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, November 21, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-27804 Filed 10-16-97; 1:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
# Bill 

# Jeffers P. 0. Box 715 Holbrook, AZ 86025

July 21, 2012 Administrator Lisa Jackson U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. N

.W. Washington, D.C. 20460

re: EPA-R09-0AR-20 12-0021 , FRL Dear Administrator Jackson: 

# F )

c

-.·,**.~ p**  

# ·;··r) 1 ' 'I

.. , I.__**-· ~-·**  

### ./ LL 

### 928-524-2675 FAX 928-524-3619 CELL 928-241-0224 

## 201i JUL 

## 30 

## PM I: 

## 27 . e-mall wjeffers@frontiemet.net

I write to respectfully request an extension ofthe public comment period and the scheduling ofa public hearing in Navajo County for the EPA to receive regional input on the proposed haze plan recently proposed for coal-fired power plants in northeastern Arizona. We all want and hope that energy can be produced with little impact ·to the environment and the proposal, announced on

.!uly 2nd by the EPA, includes several rules that to my knowledge have not even been published in the Federal Register. Without appropriate review time, adequate opportunity to respond to either the public meeting in Phoenix or the written review period ending August 31 are impeded

. As these new rules may have considerable consequences for this area and the population it serves, it could also impact energy availability for the entire western region, so I request adequate review time for appropriate consideration. It is virtually impossible to wisely assess the ir.1pacts the new rules may have without adequate time to examine the basis of the rules and potential affects. The EPA has scheduled one public hearing on July 31 8t in Phoenix and established a deadline for written comments on the proposed rule is August 31, 2012. I, again, respectfully ask that you postpone the currently scheduled July 31 s t hearing until a reasonable time after the rules are actually released, thal lhe deadline for comments on the proposed rules be extended to 90 days after they arc actually published in the Federal Register and to schedule a publi9 hearing in the NE Arizona Region

. Appropriate review time and public hearings in our location wili insure a fair andjust decision and allow me and leaders in the area time to evaluate and respond in the best interest ofthis rural and economically depressed region

.

'cc: Gina McCarthy 

### IAssistant Administrator, U.S. EPA Office ofAir and Radiation 

### I USEPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W

. Mail Code 6101A, Washington, DC 20460 Jared Blumenfeld 

### IRegional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9 

### I 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
EXHIBIT 10.11



 



Exhibit 10.11

	 	 	 
	 	 	
Interoffice Communication
		 	 
	 	 	
Elease E. Wright

Head of Aetna Human Resources

(860) 273-8371

Fax: (860) 560-8721



	 	 	 



	To	 	
John W. Rowe, MD
	 	 	 
	Date	 	
December 6, 2002
	 	 	 
	Subject	 	
Employment Agreement





Aetna Inc.’s Board of Director’s Committee on Compensation and Organization has
approved the following amendment to your Employment Agreement with the Company
dated as of September 6, 2000. Section 2.04 of the Employment Agreement
shall be deleted and replaced with the following: “During the Employment Term,
Company shall pay an annual premium of $73,500 on life insurance covering
Executive and payable to beneficiaries designated by Executive”.


Except as so amended, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.


Aetna Inc.



	 	 	 
	By:	 	
/s/ Elease E. Wright
	 	 	

	 	 	
Elease E. Wright
#### Carroll WELCH v. STATE.

No. 38173.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 215 So.2d 895.
Step 1                    Identify                    Stakeholders                

                    Step 2                    Use                    Safety Data                

                    Step 3                    Choose Proven                    Solutions                

                    Step 4                    Implement                    Solutions                

                    Finish Line                

# Roadway Departure Countermeasure Videos

Content will open in a new window

## Tools and Resources

Countermeasures
              - FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
              - NHTSA Countermeasures That Work
              - NHTSA Countermeasures That Work 9th Edition

Training
              - Systemic Approach Training – Part 2
              - Low-Cost Safety Improvements Training
              - Select Countermeasures Video

Helpful Links
              - FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
              - FHWA Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
FAA-2010-0279

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization

NaliollallJusiness Air('raft Association

Regiooal Airline Association

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association

ATA

Person Contacted

Eli Cotti

Dave l,ottcr('r

Robert Hackman

Craig Fabian

Date Response

-