alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

LAWRENCE SIKUTWA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 30140

D.C. No. 4:12

- cr

- 00056

- BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018 **

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Lawrence Sikutwa appeals from the district court’s judg ment and challenges

the revocation of supervised release following a contested evidentiary hearing. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see

United States v. Verduzco , 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003), we aff irm.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

AUG 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 30140

Sikutwa contends that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of

the evidence that his violation was willful and, therefore, the district court erred by

r evoking his supervised release. Contrary to Sikutwa’s contention, Bearden v.

Georgia

, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), did not require the district court to find that

Sikutwa’s violation was willful. In that case , the Court addressed the

circumstances under which the trial court may imprison a defendant for failure to

pay. See id. at 672 (court may not impose sentence of imprisonment for failure to

pay unless failure was willful or, in the case of bona fide efforts to pay , where the

court determines that alternative s to imprisonment are insufficient ). Bearden is

inapposite here because the district court did no t impose a term of imprisonment; it

instead opted to impose a new supervised release term, with a 60

- day period of

home confinement. In any event, the evidence here was sufficient to show

willfulness , notwithstanding the fact that Sikutwa paid more than was required on

some occasions

. See United States v. Jeremiah , 493 F.3d 1042 , 1045

- 46 (9th Cir.

2007).

AFFIRMED.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-39247, 333-51671-01, 333-51759 and 333-61913, and Form S-8
Nos. 333-12117, 333-29759, 333-29763 and 333-55901) and related Prospectuses of
Highwoods Properties, Inc. and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.
333-51671) and related Prospectus of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership of our
report dated February 16, 1999 (except for Note 15 as to which the date is March
15, 1999) with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Highwoods Properties, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1998.



                                                   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Raleigh, North Carolina
March 26, 1999
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elonzo Hubbard, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 898]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated June 29, 1992 *(People v Hubbard,*184 AD2d 781), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 2, 1991.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.
From: <Luben.Lyn@epamail.epa.gov> 

To: CJM@indecon.com; MEwen@indecon.com; JPrice@indecon.com 

Date: 7/9/2009 1:39 PM 

Subject: Scrap Tires 

Attachments: Kilns burning Tires.pdf 

Jason: 

We met with Michael Blumenthal of the Rubber Manufacturer's Association 

(RMA) today. Below is a summary of the meeting: 

1) Michael Blumenthal is the president of the Industrial Resource 

Council (IRC) and on the Alabama scrap tire commission. 

2) RMA only represents producers, not processors or users. 

3) RMA is in constant contact with the Kilns concerning tire for fuel 

issues. LaFarge recently contacted them concerning their concerns over 

what EPA is doing in the proposed 112-129 rule. They say that if 

whole tires are made a solid waste that it will kill the market for 

whole tire use in kilns. 

4) A total of 66 kilns in the U.S. burn tires. Of this total, only ten 

burn shredded tires, and one or two burn both whole and shredded (see 

attached). 

5) There are five or six states where most or all of their scrap tire 

program is devoted to facilitating whole tires going to kilns (AL, PA, 

OK, TX, CA). 

6) States with tire programs generally charge a fee on per tire basis 

for funding to manage the program. This fee is generally around $1 per 

tire. 

7) Kilns are paid by the state programs to receive tires. The current 

going rate ranges from five to fifteen cents per tire. Some kilns, 

apparently very few, take whole tires for free. No kilns pay for 

whole tires. However, kilns will always pay for shredded tires. 

8) The Southeast is currently the strongest market for tires for fuel. 

9) The scrap tire market is moving more toward ground rubber. 

Currently, 100% of all truck tires are going for ground rubber, 

10) Cement kilns are the second largest market for tires for fuel with 

pulp and paper mills being the first. 

11) Kilns can derive up to 25, or in some cases 33% of their total fuel 

value form tires. Above this level the zinc levels will result in 

reduced quality cement. 

12) RMA is concerned about the ORD study on ground rubber... 
(See attached file: Kilns burning Tires.pdf) 

Please incorporate this information into our economic assessment, and 

the characterization paper, as appropriate. 

Thanks, 

Mr. Lyn D Luben 

703-308-0508 (phone) 

703-308-7903 (FAX) 

luben.lyn@epa.gov 

EPA Mail Code - 5305P
#### BRISTOL SPRINGS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Lawrence D. LUKIN, as Environmental Control Officer of Palm Beach County and Palm Beach County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 70-1056.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Stewart, Jr., Judge.

Appeal quashed.
H. Res. 505

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

August 4, 1994.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 3841) to amend the Bank Holding Company

Act of 1956, the Revised Statutes of the United States, and

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide for interstate

banking and branching. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The

conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
Strat Aero International

Ph: 1.832.912.4273

Fax: 1.832.553.7975

www.strat-aero.com

LONDON NEW YORK HOUSTON

January 12, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Modification to Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations submitted May 5, 2015

Dear Sir or Madam:

I would like to request an amendment to Strat Aero International’s 333 exemption (Exemption No. 12655 / 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1606). We would like to add the DJI Matrice 100, the DJI Phantom 3, and the 

SenseFly eBee sUASs to our list of approved aircraft. I will submit the user’s manuals for each of these to 

333exemptions@faa.gov to further clarify safety and operational features of these aircraft.

Approval of these aircraft will not change missions, training, and/or maintenance we perform.

If you have questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Jonathan Adams at 518-224-5759. Thanks again for 

your help with approving our request. 

Best regards,

Tanya Renae Compton

Project Management-Administration

Strat Aero International, Inc.

On behalf of

Jonathan E. Adams

Executive Vice President

Strat Aero International, Inc.
# C_2023205EN.01000302.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Proceedings brought by Starkinvest SRL

(Case C-291/21, (1) Starkinvest)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 - European Account Preservation Order procedure - Conditions for issuing a preservation order - Article 4 - Concept of ‘judgment’ - Article 7 - Concept of ‘judgment requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim’ - Judgment ordering a party to make a penalty payment for breach of a prohibitory order - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 55 - Scope)

(2023/C 205/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Starkinvest SRL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters

must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment that orders a debtor to make a penalty payment in the event of a future breach of a prohibitory order and that therefore does not definitively set the amount of that penalty payment does not constitute a judgment requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim, within the meaning of that provision, such that the creditor who requests a European Account Preservation Order is not exempt from the obligation to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the court before which an application for that order is brought that he or she is likely to succeed on the substance of his or her claim against the debtor.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
EXHIBIT
10.43




First
Amendment
 to
 Employment
Agreement
 
 This
First Amendment (the
“First Amendment”) to Employment Agreement is made
this 27h day
of September, 2008, by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on the one hand, and S. James Miller, Chairman of
the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, on the other
hand (the “Executive”).
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of September 27, 2005
(the “Employment Agreement”); and
 
 WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and
 
 WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.
 
 NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Employment Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
 
 Section“2.Term of
Agreement”strike the
language “continue until the third anniversary of the Effective Date” and
replace it with “continue until June 30, 2009”.
 
 
 
 
 _________________________________                                           _________________________________
 
 ImageWare
Systems,
Inc.                                                                           S.
James Miller
ft3

●

●

●

●●● ●●●

●

●

●

Note: No traverse point shall be within 1.0" of the stack walls (see Sections 11.3.1)

Typical vertical 

exhaust stack Equivalent downstream diameter (B):

All points at least 1.0" from stack wall:

A

B

Stack diameter:

Upstream diameter (A):

16

12

8

Duct diameters upstream from flow disturbance or stack exit (Distance A)

0.50 0.75 1.00

20

24

Total points:

Points per port:

1

2

4.4

14.6

15.7

3

4

N/A

N/A

N/A

5

6

flow

Inlet

Inside wall 

Distance (in)

12

7.664

15.708

Total minimum number of traverse points

0.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 0.25 2.25 2.50

12

4

1 6

Duct diameters downstream from flow disturbance (Distance B)

3 4 5 0

8 Diameters 12" to 24"

24

20

16

Diameters > 24"

Total minimum number of traverse points

0

All sampling locations that have 

an upstream diameter less tha 0.5 

or a downstream diameter of less than 2.0 do not meet EPA Method 

1 specifications

2 7 8 9

24

20

12

4

8

16

#N/A

#N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A #N/A

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

58.1

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

29.6

70.4

85.4

95.6

#N/A

TransAlta Centralia Coal-Fired Boiler Scrubber Outlets

inches

inches

inches

inches

see note

Pass

Pass

111.7

Downstream diameter (B):

Number of ports being used:

Equivalent upstream diameter (A):

Outside port

Distance (in)

21.7

2

2.521

#N/A

257.3

310.9

347.3

357.0

900.0

2736.0

6.00

341.3

#N/A

TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT (PARTICULATE)

CIRCULAR STACKS OVER 24 INCHES

Pass

304.9

52.1

105.7

251.3

Port length:

Example: Location of 12 points

Point % Diameter

6

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

DUCT AREA = 695.127
# Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor (Production)

                - Title:  Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor (Production) 
                - Form #:         SF1405      
                - Current Revision Date:  01/2014
                - Authority or Regulation:  FAR (48 CFR) 53.209-1(c)

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
# C_2020215EN.01005601.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/56

---

Action brought on 23 April 2020 — JU and Others v Council

(Case T-252/20)

(2020/C 215/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: JU, JV, JW, JY, JZ, KA, KB (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, A. von Westernhagen, and D. Harrison, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (1), insofar it deprives them without their consent and without due process of their status as Union citizens and their rights arising therefrom; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (1), insofar it deprives them without their consent and without due process of their status as Union citizens and their rights arising therefrom;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that by depriving them, of their status of Union citizenship and the fundamental rights arising therefrom, the Council has breached Articles 20 and 23 TFEU, Article 50 TFEU, Articles 39, 40, 45 and 46 as well as Articles 7 and 19 of the Charter, the principles of proportionality, of equal treatment and of legitimate expectations.

Therefore, the applicants claim that Union Citizenship is the fundamental status of EU nationals. As such, it is personal in nature and, once vested, it does not automatically demise upon the withdrawal of the United Kingdom. The applicants allege that no person may be deprived arbitrarily of their Union citizenship status and the rights flowing thereof.

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 2020, L 29, p. 1

---
#### CAROTHERS *v.*CITY OF STANTON.

Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Chief of Volunteer Fire Department.

Chief of city volunteer fire department, who was paid salary of $25 per year, was employee of city, and therefore was properly awarded minimum sum as compensation provided by workmen’s compensation act (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8425) for injuries received at fire.

On publie officers or employees as within the workmen’s compensation act, see annotation in L. R. A. 1917D, 146.

Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.

Submitted January 8, 1932.

(Docket No. 84, Calendar No. 35,856.)

Decided March 2, 1932.

Charles H. Carothers presented his claim against City of Stanton, employer, and American Employers Insurance Corporation, insurer, for compensation for an accidental injury sustained while employed as a fireman.

Award to plaintiff affirmed.

*Frank A. Miller,*for plaintiff.

*Mason, Alexander, McCaslin, Gholette é Mitts,*for defendants.

Wiest, J.

Plaintiff was employed by the city of Stanton, as chief of its volunteer fire department, at a salary of $25 a year, and, at a fire, he was seriously injured. The department of labor and industry held that plaintiff was an employee of the city and awarded him the minimum of compensation, provided by 2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8425.

*108Upon appeal, defendants contend that such holding is contrary to onr opinion in *Hartman*v. *Village of St. Clair Shores,*216 Mich. 603.

In that ease a volunteer fireman was paid $2 for each fire he attended, provided he was one of the first six to respond. The day the claimant in that case was injured he attended six fires and was paid $5. The record of the case discloses that an agreement to pay him $7 per week (the statutory minimum) was disapproved by the department and an allowance was made based upon a daily wage of $5. Such an allowance was clearly erroneous and we set it aside.

In the case at bar there was no allowance based upon a daily wage, but an allowance of the minimum sum set by the statute, to be accorded in all instances where the daily wage does not admit of a higher sum.

Plaintiff’s duties, as chief of the fire department, took but little of his time, and he carried on an independent business and performed other services for the city. This, and the fact that his yearly compensation as chief of the fire department was small and was not exacted promptly and sometimes credited to his water rate bill, did not at all change his relation as an employee of the city for hire.

The award is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, and Butzel, JJ., concurred. McDonald, J., did not sit.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 40

Concerning United States assistance to Nicaragua.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1993

Mr. PENNY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Concerning United States assistance to Nicaragua.

Whereas the Nicaraguan economy and people continue to suffer from the effects of the recent civil war and require

international attention and assistance;

Whereas the suspension of United States assistance to Nicaragua has contributed to the economic hardship and social unrest, and threatens to undermine the progress

which has been made in recent years in the areas of economic, political, and military reform;

Whereas the civil war in Nicaragua has ended and the competing military forces have been largely demobilized and

reduced in size;

Whereas the new democratic government has successfully

dealt with such macroeconomic problems as

hyperinflation and currency stabilization; and
2

•HRES 40 IH

Whereas despite some improvement, there are persistent

problems in Nicaragua concerning private property

rights, human rights, and military spending: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the President should—

3 (1) release all humanitarian, development, and

4 economic assistance that was authorized and appro5 priated by Congress for Nicaragua in fiscal years

6 1992 and 1993;

7 (2) direct development-related assistance to

8 small farmers and businesses, maternal and child

9 health care programs, education programs for chil10 dren, and programs that will assist Nicaragua in

11 strengthening and deepening institutions that pro12 mote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law;

13 and

14 (3) encourage the democratically elected govern15 ment of Nicaragua to make progress in resolving

16 property disputes, investigating and prosecuting all

17 reported violations of human rights, and reducing

18 military expenditures to regional levels.

Æ
ex101-letteragreementfor






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






11    Sincerely,   /s/ Steven T. Mnuchin  Steven T. Mnuchin      Agreed and Accepted:    Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, by   Federal Housing Finance Agency, its Conservator  /s/ Mark A. Calabria                                                Mark A. Calabria  Director
# C_2023035EN.01001702.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — GV v Caisse nationale d’assurance pension

(Case C-731/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of persons - Article 45 TFEU - Workers - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) and (2) - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Survivor’s pension - Members of a civil partnership - National legislation making the grant of a survivor’s pension conditional upon the entry in the national register of a partnership that was validly concluded and registered in another Member State)

(2023/C 35/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GV

Defendant: Caisse nationale d’assurance pension

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2016,

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a host Member State which provides that the grant, to the surviving partner of a partnership that was validly entered into and registered in another Member State, of a survivor’s pension due on account of the exercise, in the first Member State, of a professional activity by the deceased partner, is subject to the condition that the partnership was first recorded in the register kept by that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---