alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50956 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ROBERTO ORTIZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-500-ALL

-------------------- April 10, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Jose Roberto Ortiz-Hernandez appeals the 46-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ortiz-Hernandez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Ortiz-Hernandez argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of the evidenceNo. 01-50956 -2- standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. Ortiz-Hernandez thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Ortiz-Hernandez waived the right to appeal his sentence. Ortiz-Hernandez does not challenge the validity of the waiver provision, and we are satisfied that the waiver of appeal was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. Ortiz-Hernandez’s argument that his waiver should not be enforced due to public policy concerns is without merit. Therefore, to the extent Ortiz-Hernandez’s argument challenges his sentence, the appeal is DISMISSED. To the extent Ortiz-Hernandez’s argument may be construed as challenging the validity of his conviction, it is not waived. However, Ortiz-Hernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). He seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 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), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.No. 01-50956 -3-

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Helen I. COTTON, Appellant, v. Euble E. COTTON, Appellee.

No. T-226.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 1973.

Charles L. Cetti, of Phillips, Williams, McGraw, Cetti & O’Brien, Pensacola, for appellant.

Henry Clay Mitchell, Jr., Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Cole v. Cole, 130 So.2d 126 (Fla.App.1961) and Cotton v. Cotton, 270 So.2d 786 (Fla.App.1972).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### HALIFAX HOSPITAL DISTRICT, a special taxing District, Appellant, v. Grace HUMPHRIES, Appellee.

No. H-499.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Feb. 2, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Governments
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-TPS.18 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030/763-3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2012 Finances of Selected State and Local Government Employee Retirement Systems: 4th Quarter 2011 This quarterly survey provides national summary statistics on the revenues, expenditures and composition of assets of the 100 largest state and local public employee retirement systems in the United States. These 100 systems comprise 89.4 percent of financial activity among such entities, based on the 2007 Census of Governments. This survey presents the most current statistics about investment decisions by state and local public employee retirement systems, which are among the largest types of institutional investors in the U.S. financial markets. These statistical tables are published three months after each calendar quarter and show national financial transactions and trends for the past five years. For more information, please visit <https://www.census.gov/govs/qpr/> **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ) No. ACM S32754

Appellee )

)

v. )

) ORDER

Daniel O. HARTNER )

Airman First Class (E-3) )

U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Panel 2

On 12 September 2023, Appellant submitted a Motion to Withdraw from 

Appellant Review and Motion to Attach. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach a DD Form 2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and 

Special Courts-Martial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals,

signed by Appellant on 11 September 2023 and Appellant’s counsel on 12 September 2023.

The Government did not submit any opposition.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 18th day of September 2023,

ORDERED:

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Motion to Attach are GRANTED. Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records 

Branch (JAJM) for further processing in accordance with Rules for CourtsMartial 1115(f)(3) and 1201, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 

ed.). 

FOR THE COURT

FLEMING E. KEEFE, Capt, USAF

Deputy Clerk of the Court
#### George Paul BERGERON v. Jennifer Ann Rogers BERGERON.

No. 8680.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1971.

*335Edward J. Gaidry, of Duval, Arceneaux & Lewis, Houma, for appellant.

Keith M. Whipple, of Himel & Whipple, Houma, for appellee.

Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

MOTION TO DISMISS

ELLIS, Judge:

The motion to dismiss filed herein alleges that the plaintiff was awarded custody of his minor child by judgment of the trial court, which judgment has been appealed to this court. It further alleges that a contempt rule has issued against the defendant for failure to comply therewith, but that the said rule has not been heard.

It is alleged by plaintiff that the appeal should be dismissed and the matter remanded so that the contempt rule can be heard and decided, and that a subsequent appeal would present the entire matter to this court, thereby avoiding piecemeal appeals.

The contention is without merit. The issue of contempt is not related to the issues to be presented by the appeal taken herein, and was not presented by the original pleadings pursuant to which the judgment appealed from was rendered.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied, at plaintiff’s cost.

Motion denied.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: July 30, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: EPA Region 1

SUBJECT: April 23, 2015, Presentation on the Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants at Northeast Gas Association’s Regional Market Trends Forum

SUMMARY

On April 30, 2015, Regional Administrator Curt Spalding presented on the Clean Power 

Plan during the Northeast Gas Association’s Regional Market Trends Forum. 

ATTENDEES

Curt Spalding, EPA

John Moskal, EPA

Approximately 200 people attended this conference. Attendance was not taken by EPA

Slides are attached.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesCensus 2000

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB01-CN.83**
**Contact:**  Public Information Office								301-457-3691/301-457-3620 (fax)301-457-1037 (TDD)e-mail: 2000usa@census.govStatistical Information StaffPopulation Division301-457-2422e-mail: pop@census.gov

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  EMBARGOED UNTIL: 12:01 A.M. EDT, MAY 18, 2001 (FRIDAY)

## Census Bureau Releases Census 2000 Demographic Profile for Kansas

 The U.S. Census Bureau today released the *Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: Census 2000* for Kansas, a one-page table providing Census 2000 data on age and sex distribution, race, Hispanic origin, household relationship and type, housing occupancy and tenure (whether the housing occupant owns or rents).

 The profile includes nearly 100 data items in all, plus percentage distributions.

 In addition to the profile of the state as a whole, similar demographic profiles for counties, places and other geographic components of the state can be accessed on an embargoed basis at <https://www.census.gov/dcmd/www/embargo/embargo_demoprofile.html>. After the release time, go to the Census Bureau's online search-and-retrieval database American FactFinder <http://factfinder2.census.gov> or to its Demographic Profile Page <https://www.census.gov/census2000/demoprofile.html>. You will also be able to download the profiles from the bureau's file transfer protocol site <http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/demographic_profile/>.

 For information about how to order paper copies of Census 2000 demographic profiles, contact Customer Services Center, U.S. Census Bureau, 301-457-4100; or e-mail:<webmaster@census.gov>.

 For local context, contact the Kansas State Data Center, 785-296-3296; e-mail: <ksst131b@ink.org>.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MIZAR, INC. AS OF MARCH 31, 1997, AND FOR THE NINE
MONTHS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,546
<SECURITIES>                                     9,069
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,407
<ALLOWANCES>                                        77
<INVENTORY>                                      1,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,421
<PP&E>                                           2,355
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,257
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,341
<SALES>                                          8,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,617
<CGS>                                            4,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    143
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                118
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       118
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.58



AMENDMENT TO THE HERCULES INCORPORATED 
EMPLOYEE PENSION RESTORATION PLAN


WHEREAS, Ashland Inc. (“Ashland”), maintains the Hercules Incorporated Employee Pension Restoration Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of employees eligible to participate therein; and
WHEREAS, Ashland is the sponsor of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article IV, Section 5, of the Ashland Inc. Charter of the Personnel and Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Ashland, the Committee has retained authority to amend or transfer any of the benefit plans of Ashland and its subsidiaries and affiliates that are more than 50% owned by Ashland; and
WHEREAS, the SRVP & Chief Financial Officer of Ashland Inc. has been delegated the authority by the Committee to prepare and execute any and all amendments necessary to give effect to this decision of the Committee. 
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Plan is amended, effective September 1, 2016, as follows:




		
	I.
	The following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph under Section 2, titled "Type of Plan":


In accordance with a corporate reorganization, effective September 1, 2016, sponsorship of the Restoration Plan was transferred to Valvoline LLC.
		
	II.
	The following subsection (i) is added to Section 3 as follows:


(i) Sponsor shall mean Valvoline LLC.
		
	III.
	In all other respects the Plan shall remain unchanged.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Chief Financial Officer has executed this amendment to the Plan to be effective as of the date noted above.


/s/ J. Kevin Willis
                                                       
J. Kevin Willis
SRVP & Chief Financial Officer, Ashland Inc.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, Steven R. Springsteel, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Verity, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 8, 2005
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAQUAN RICARDO SAEZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 1425

[ July 8, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth J udicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Charles A. Schwab

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562013 CF 002292 A

.

Jaquan Ricardo Saez

, Jasper

, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, K UNTZ and A RTAU

, JJ. , concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*John J. Bablo, Defendant.

County Court, Yates County,

September 17, 1953.

*732
      *Lyman H. Smith, District Attorney,*for plaintiff.

*Justin H. Corcoran*for defendant.

McCann, J.

This is a proceeding to remove this case from Justice’s Court to County Court pursuant to the provisions of section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act.

The defendant was brought before Hon. Douglas Miles, one of the Justices of the Peace of the Town of Starkey in Yates County, for an alleged violation of subdivision (b) of section 363 of the New York State Conservation Law. The information laid before Justice Miles alleges in substance that the defendant refused to cease fishing on and leave the lands of one Edith Brewer when she requested him to do so.

Subdivision (b) of section 363 is in part X of the Conservation Law. The third paragraph of subdivision *2*of section 176 of that law makes any violation of part X a misdemeanor. Section 2 of the Penal Law defines a misdemeanor as a crime. Section 953 of the Conservation Law grants the Courts of Special Sessions jurisdiction to try offenses committed. under the Conservation Law.

The defendant bases his motion on subdivision 1 of section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act, the pertinent part of which reads as follows: ‘' Whenever in any action or special proceedings it shall appear *that the title to real property will come in question** * * the action or proceeding may he removed to a court having the proper jurisdiction.”

The above portion of section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act was enacted by the Legislature of this State in 1943 because it felt that the procedure transferring these causes from Justice’s Court pursuant to sections 172-179 of the Justice Court Act was too cumbersome. It entailed too much “ red tape.”

I have been unable to find cases construing this comparatively new section of the law. It has therefore become necessary to turn to section 172 of the Justice Court Act. Under this section the case nearest in point seems to he that of *La Rue*v. *Smith*(153 N. Y. 428). There the court in its opinion at pages 430-431 says: *“*The action involved no question save that which the ordinary action of trespass always involves, namely, an injury to the plaintiff’s possession. The plea of title which, under § 2951 of the Code, requires the justice to enter judgment of discontinuance in the action means some affirmative unequivocal asser*733tion on the part of the defendant of title to the *locus in quo*or some part thereof.”

The crime which this defendant is alleged to have committed seems to me to be in the nature of a trespass, and an injury to plaintiff’s possession. After an examination of the moving papers I am unable to find where the Justice’s Court was in any way ousted from jurisdiction by reason of there being a question of title to the real property as intended by section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act.

The motion of the People for dismissal of this proceeding is granted and the order staying the proceedings herein is vacated. Submit order.