alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 37879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16541]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15614 and #15615; CALIFORNIA Disaster Number CA-
00285]


Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of 
California

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of California dated 07/25/2018.
    Incident: Klamathon Fire.
    Incident Period: 07/05/2018 through 07/23/2018.

DATES: Issued on 07/25/2018.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/24/2018.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/25/2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, 
(202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Siskiyou.
Contiguous Counties:
    California: Del Norte, Humboldt, Modoc, Shasta, Trinity.
    Oregon: Jackson, Josephine, Klamath.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      3.875
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.938
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      7.220
  Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      3.610
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.500
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit      3.610
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15614 5 
and for economic injury is 15615 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California, 
Oregon.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Linda E. McMahon,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-16541 Filed 8-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
* 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

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41258

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAVIER HERNANDEZ-NEGRETE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-150-ALL

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Javier Hernandez-Negrete (“Hernandez”) appeals

following his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence of

imprisonment on one count of being found in the United States,

without permission, following removal after having been convicted

of an aggravated felony. 

For the first time on appeal, Hernandez argues that the

sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional

because they do not require the fact of a prior felony or
No. 04-41258

-2-

aggravated felony conviction to be charged in the indictment and

proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He contends that his sentence

is invalid, and he argues that it should not exceed the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

 Hernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he

asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his

argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jessie Hudson, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 219]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree (Penal Law § 165.06). He contends that County Court improperly admitted a certificate from the New *944York State Division of Criminal Justice Services comparing defendant’s fingerprints taken when defendant was arrested on the present charge with those taken when he was arrested on a similar charge a year earlier. Defendant also contends that the court erred in admitting the certificate of conviction of Rochester City Court to show that he was the same person convicted on the prior charge and in admitting a copy of defendant’s NYSIIS report, which also shows the conviction of the prior charge.

Although the prosecutor did not cite to the public documents exception to the hearsay rule in offering the NYSIIS report, he stated as a ground for its admission that the Division of Criminal Justice Services must classify fingerprints upon receipt from a police agency, search its records for information regarding the existence of a criminal record of the person bearing those fingerprints and transmit such information to the forwarding police agency. We view that argument as the equivalent of making the offer pursuant to the public documents exception. Defendant did not dispute the authority of the Division of Criminal Justice Services to maintain such records or the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Identification and Criminal History Operations to certify them.

"When a public officer is required or authorized, by statute or nature of the duty of the office, to keep records or to make reports of acts or transactions occurring in the course of the official duty, the records or reports so made by or under the supervision of the public officer are admissible in evidence” (Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-1101, at 688 [Farrell 11th ed]). They are "prima facie evidence of the facts stated” (CPLR 4520), and defendant presented no proof to rebut those facts. The NYSIIS report, the certificate of conviction of Rochester City Court, and the testimony of a Sheriff’s Deputy furnished the necessary proof that defendant had previously been convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05 [1]), an element of the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree. Even were we to assume that the fingerprint comparison report was improperly admitted, such error is harmless. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.—Unauthorized Use Vehicle, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
#### Roy BLACKBURN, Mrs. Maude Simmons and Mrs. H. D. Foreman, Appellants, v. City of PANAMA CITY, Florida, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 4, 1971.

Robert B. Staats, Panama City, for appellants.

William E. Harris of Davenport, Johnston & Harris, Panama City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment holding that a municipal ordinance enacted in Panama City is valid. The effect of the ordinance is to change the permissible distance between liquor licensees from 750 feet, as permitted by a prior ordinance, to a distance of 500 feet under the provisions of the challenged ordinance.

Our consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel leads us to conclude that the appellee municipality acted within the scope of the authority conferred upon it by the provisions of Section 561.44, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. See Glackman v. City of Miami Beach, 51 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1951), headnotes 2 and 3.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and WIGGIN-TON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Roy Lee BAKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-451.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 28, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Herbert M. Klein, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arthur L. Rothenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The only point preserved for review on this appeal is the question of the “voluntariness” of a statement given by the appellant.

From the record, it appears that counsel for the appellant [defendant in the trial court] conceded that the statement was given voluntarily. Therefore, we find the point not to be well taken on this appeal. Compare: Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 60; State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App.1968, 205 So.2d 675; Grace v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 225; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 108; DeRiggi v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 714 [opinion filed April 30, 1968],

Affirmed.
i a I Sa

savoeacueteee pg at reakeustetysier sa a eR Nee ee ace Sea
Bey § ay { DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE-—-BUREAU OF THE CENNUS epee... anm ee-/
thee Ve br aah o taconporatd ace Yn uf speciale wang ty A. vninerporned pine Vor fal deg Cu tg, ' SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES; 1940

couny Ma dis om gr ——— 5 APRDDER (° 27 SPURTS D sg  O AY SO POPULATION SCHEDULE

t

ocettes | KOTesHOLD Bata nAME AELATION PERSONS 14 TRAMS OLD AND CVES—-EMFLOTHERT STATUS

OCCETATION. IRDUNTTT, £50 Cham OF WoERET
pagan oe eth» fale Tae me
Cr
gia he

t Same of each persen wbeoe uere/ piece
2 = | of residence om April 1, U0, was in | “inbeekip tS pe
Ee soasetnd

6 peas To IReLE oe:

i ee a
eee kW ater meee et ree. band ste.

1, Ohteee weeter 3 year sgn. Cirke “taste
CA hae ae ee gine 9 fret aan

Rene ot ne paren hi tla ing cern,

Siwensat, Teuker

tadmeeey at Dente,
eotten et

| = : i He ‘= | =

S| Riche eres of enttot xmpiietedd |

? . ie ‘ CJ

———, Habart E. | San |?

c

Alfred. we} Soe

to

Mebrask.a..\al Sanschouse.|. aS vA A Va. | . me PATS
Webrasha (ill |Semehear Me| Ma We Ws |S

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

= —,Daon ala
M owas A, lite

ated fe Fe eee)
= = Lanny &_AS
als axtrling Charles |
ee eee
Carson HemernL.
— wleinth | wi
—— Hathenine Wanghte 2
= Fort. i
— Sehr
. ~, Cenevra
o———— Blanche

Deki S L

KS}

bere
REPEL

© ol ae L
Ss eit SH i ve Cantyerer [Gastting | in “er: ay
|

13 Isl Aechnarka BA [Sa FO) Aaa ] Hi RRR R= 2 Se
fo. tb | Kassas (/0] 1S z eae = ea ha 2!) eC Vit hain Pa :
4 Hh ws : +4
1A. + 4

|hasatAlanager

bhpRe

EERERS

fr.
~ Ra

RFE SEEE

!

SUPPLEMENTARY FOR PERBONS 14 TEARS OLD AND GVEA YOR OFFICE USK ONLS—DO NOT WEITs OX TEESE COLTESS
QUESTIONS sas

L— 24 j-__., _X_-} 1 ¥ {4

POCHAL seORETY. }

Sit fae |

hig il AL wee tes ah even te “Ha nd ae aa et ra “” s :

i
aa

cy

a AA
Bo WRI Sed 1p EL se thee

I3 o SS WV ch) Oh WiSGonitn

CAS EEE OF HORE OwREN «© Oa tA COLOR Ou Lace)

45
i:

rence
AWe
errtamaroat

i
i

High mca, 084 GA penne 2, BH
Oikegs, bate Gb peat. OO OO
CSope, Rb w euderguent oo

|
|

|
|

A;
|

,
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1185

To provide for a pollution prevention for cities program, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 30, 1993

Mr. GLENN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To provide for a pollution prevention for cities program,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. POLLUTION PREVENTION FOR CITIES PRO4 GRAM.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 118 of the Federal Water

6 Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268) is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as

8 subsections (i) and (j), respectively; and

9 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the follow10 ing new subsection:
2

•S 1185 IS

1 ‘‘(g) POLLUTION PREVENTION FOR CITIES PRO2 GRAM.—

3 ‘‘(1) APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL ASSIST4 ANCE.—A municipality located within the Great

5 Lakes basin boundaries may apply for technical and

6 financial assistance from the Administrator to imple7 ment source reduction of toxic pollutants in urban

8 runoff, wastewater, and stormwater.

9 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible for assistance

10 under this subsection, a municipality shall apply to

11 the Administrator with a statement—

12 ‘‘(A) stating pollutant reduction goals; and

13 ‘‘(B) documenting stakeholder interest in

14 implementing voluntary pollutant reduction

15 measures.

16 ‘‘(3) ASSISTANCE.—The Administrator shall,

17 for each municipality with an approved application

18 statement—

19 ‘‘(A) provide technical assistance in the de20 velopment of a municipal source reduction ac21 tion plan; and

22 ‘‘(B) authorize the expenditure of State re23 volving fund monies pursuant to section 602(a)

24 for the implementation of an approved source

25 reduction plan.’’.
3

•S 1185 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

2 (1) REVOLVING FUNDS.—Section 601(a) of the

3 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.

4 1381(a)) is amended—

5 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of para6 graph (2); and

7 (B) by inserting before the period at the

8 end the following: ‘‘, and (4) for implementing

9 a source reduction action plan that has been

10 approved by the Administrator pursuant to sec11 tion 118(g)’’.

12 (2) PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.—

13 The first sentence of section 603(c) of such Act (33

14 U.S.C. 1383(c)) is amended—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of para16 graph (2); and

17 (B) by inserting before the period at the

18 end the following: ‘‘, and (4) for implementing

19 a source reduction action plan that has been

20 approved by the Administrator pursuant to sec21 tion 118(g)’’.

Æ
MODIFY, AFFIRM, REVERSE and REMAND, and Opinion Filed April 23, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00035-CV

DAVID EOFF, Appellant

V.

CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09034

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

In our opinion dated April 7, 2015, we suggested a remittitur of $4,319.25 of the actual 

damages awarded to Central Mutual Insurance Company (Central Mutual). We stated that if the 

remittitur was filed by Central Mutual within fifteen days of the date of the opinion, we would 

modify the trial court’s judgment with respect to the damages awarded and affirm as modified.

On April 15, 2015, Central Mutual timely filed its consent to the suggestion of remittitur 

and asked this Court to modify the trial court’s judgment consistent with our opinion and 

judgment in this matter. Accordingly, we vacate our judgment, but not our opinion, dated April 

7, 2015, and modify the trial court’s judgment with respect to damages awarded to reflect the 

remittitur of $4,319.25. The trial court’s judgment is modified to award Central Mutual $1,200 

in actual damages. See TEX. R. APP. P. 46.3. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 
–2–

We remand this case to the trial court for a recalculation of prejudgment interest on the awarded 

damages.

140035SF.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DAVID EOFF, Appellant

No. 05-14-00035-CV V.

CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas,

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09034.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, 

Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

We vacate our judgment dated April 7, 2015. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of 

April 7, 2015 and supplemental opinion of April 23, 2015, we MODIFY the trial court’s 

judgment to award appellee Central Mutual Insurance Company actual damages in the amount of 

$1,200.00. 

We REVERSE the trial court’s judgment awarding appellee Central Mutual Insurance 

Company prejudgment interest and REMAND for recalculation of the amount of prejudgment 

interest.

It is ORDERED that, as modified, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED in all 

other respects.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of April, 2015.
#### Veda L. PARKER, Appellant, v. Harry L. PARKER, Appellee.

Nos. 69-213, 69-299.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 12, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1969.

Linet, Schwartz, Klein & Weiner, No. Miami Beach, for appellant.

Milton R. Wasman, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Fra bh Proraneyt_ Searcy ses pemp ecient tates be meee Se oe =
“Se 30 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—SUREAU OF THE CENSUS apwo_/7? enwe_/3//
Linssegiesnad' ghee —75 Ward of city 17. Unincorporated pice SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940 5 7
Township or other 7)

Givision of county Block Nor. _/\..~ Institution... sian ott ceaovear POPULATION SCHEDULE

—

i€0

RESIDENCE. APRIL 1, 1930 PERSONS 14 TEARS OLD AND OVER—EMPLOTMENT STATIS

PERSONAL 2 2
DESCRIPTION EDUCATION PLACE OF MIxTit

99

wo as on ine op APR en

Pharm in che Dedtard Sates he, ou B ene Sanesere bones

Eo mate Torta. : f SOM Seto taal, ba

oa Saeed Ol ear
ts ict BATS Teed Se TS
i. Stans

|

ae
icy we

Em
OSE. sae pe

ocoeraTios
‘Trete priteman ow partics — Ladaars or ous

hy, cows, we riage

STATE (oe Terrterr
or bree went)

1 March SOR (Fem ar

7) CODE cheat lana)
wrk

bad |

AE F:
| Odense Koreas
c 7

Jam dinette

S Gant bhans

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Robed

Nine Fos

Jor ALL WOMEN WiN0 a |
WR PERSONS 14 TEARS OLD AND OVER Od RAVE EEN MARRIED

PATION, EXDTETRT, 45

AL OCCTPATION

45

ows

h

Cal 1d HIGHEST GLADE OF SCTOOL ComPteren Col oO CETIREWEMEY OF THE Fuxariy
SYMAOLS - ss : ion — a —
AND Eemessey ached, Ibe 1,0 te vi *
EXPLANATORY Loita cmon >
vee Pulp te sncaoa, tat ED emt ad, a4
wOTRS - ; = pleases Aen “

Oeliege, Lat ws duh rer. C4, Ba Gace sna om tos
Cetiegs, Rh orvubeegret er gg a - An

i

ermal, _

i
hi
## Ad Hoc R oden ticide RMD S ta ke holder Wo rkgr oup

August 30, 2011 Re pr esen tat ives fr om: Fo od pr ocessors Municipalities Re gis tr an ts St ate Lead Agencies Pe stManagement Pr ofessionals Ro dent Scientis ts

## Wo rk Gr oup Goal The sug ges te d r evisions ar e int ended t o:

• pr ovide enhanced pr ot ection to pets, childr en, non - ta rg et wildlife and the en vir onmen t,

• while st ill pr oviding the necessary

oviding the necessary fle xibility pes t pr ofessionals need t o effectiv ely manage the highly div erse ro den t in fe stat ions that occur in s tructur al habit ats, and

• with clear

, en fo rc eable label language.The sug ges te d r evision language is a h ybrid of the June 30 th 2011 Ro Zo l label and the June 4 th 2011 Con tr ac , Gener ation, Maki, T alon, First Strike pr oduct labels.

### The J us tific at ion and Scien tific Basis for Es ta blishing Ro den t F or aging Rang e

### Re co mmenda tions 1. Allow for placing r oden t bait a r ealis tic dis ta nce awa y fr om buildings based on r ecen t new re sear ch/science of a Norw ayr at s home r ange (upw ar ds to 450 ft.) in urban en vir onmen ts.
Not e: these ar e not ma ximal dis ta nces. e: these ar ximal dis (R ef ) ; GARDNER

- SANT ANA, L. C., D .E. NORRIS, C.M. FORNADEL, E.R. HINSON, S.L. KLEIN, and G.E. GLASS

– **2009.** Commensal ecology , urban landscapes, and their influence on the genetic charact eristics of city

- dwelling Norw ayrats ( Rattus norvegicus ). Molecular Ecology 18(13): 2766

- 78.2. Pr ohibit baiting further than 450 feet from buildings or s tructur es, unless an active infes tat ion of the co mmensal species is confirmed . (This addr esses the indiscriminat e baiting of fence rows and other ar eas of natural veget ation wher e a lion’ s shar e of the en vir onmen ta l sec ondary poisoning occurs).
3. The new sug ges te d wor ding allows for the baiting of The new sug ding allows for the baiting of these ar eas when necessary , without continuing along the path of indiscriminat e baiting under the umbr ella of “pr event ative main te nance baiting ” (which is not IPM and is en vir onmen ta lly insensitive).4. The new wor ding mandat es tha t all e xt erior bait s tat ions be of t amper - re sis ta nt cat egory and that the bait inside the s tat ions be secur ed t o re duce the likelihood of bait migr ation out of the s tat ions in to t he en vir onmen t due t o r oden t tr anslocation. This does not add additional hur dles for pes t pr ofessionals as all TR s tat ions ar e equipped with r ods or other secur emen t to ols.5 . Addr esses and corr ects the mos t en vir onmen ta lly insensitiv e and risky pr actice of st uf fing packets and block s down r at holes ( as oft en they come right back up and thus pr esen t dir ect e xposur e t o pets, childr en, wildlife

o pets, childr en, wildlif mammals and bir ds, en vir onmen ta l w ash of f, et c.)

## Timelines fo r Moving Ahead?