alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Memorandum from Doug Hemer to Keith Williams


    
      	
               

              Date:

            	
               

              December
                28, 2006

            
	
               

              To:

            	
               

              Keith
                Williams

            
	
               

              Cc:

            	
               

              Joe
                Levesque

            
	
               

              From:

            	
               

              Doug
                Hemer

            
	
               

              Subj:

            	
               

              Severance
                Benefits

            


    

     

    In
      connection with your termination of employment effective the end of this year
      resulting from our disposition of the Dallas operation, we will provide you
      with
      the following severance benefits:

     

    	1.  	
            We
              will pay you one year’s salary ($150,000) over two years in equal payments
              on our regular payroll days commencing the first payroll day in January
              2007.

          


     

    	2.  	
            We
              will continue to fund the employer portion of your medical, dental
              and
              life insurance coverages for two years, or until you are in another
              group
              plan. While you are on COBRA, we will deduct our standard employee
              premium
              share from your severance payments under (1) above. After COBRA we
              will
              add to the severance payments under (1) above the amount of our standard
              COBRA premium less our standard employee premium share. For dental,
              we
              will work with you to subsidize whatever dental insurance works best
              for
              you.

          


     

    	3.  	
            We
              are amending your outstanding options to be exercisable through December
              31, 2007 (except that your options granted May 2, 2002 will expire
              on May
              2, 2007).
---

Exhibit: 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Riverbank Resources Inc.,(the
  "Company") on 10QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006, as filed with the
  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Trevor
  Herbert, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
  U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 1. | 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 result of operations
      of the Company.

Date: March 6, 2006.

/s/ Trevor
Herbert Trevor Herbert

Chief Financial Officer
(Title)

---
* 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

February 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41444

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANGEL ARELLANO-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-346-ALL

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

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Angel Arellano-Ramirez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for being unlawfully present in the United States

following deportation. He argues that the district court committed

reversible error under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), by sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application of

the guidelines. As the Government concedes, Arellano preserved

this issue for review by raising an objection based upon Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), in the district court. See United
No. 04-41444

-2-

States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 462-63 (5th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, the question before us “is whether the government has

met its burden to show harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Id. at 464.

The district court erred by sentencing Arellano under the

mistaken belief that the guidelines were mandatory. See United

States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005). While the district court denied

Arellano’s request for a downward departure, it sentenced him at

the low end of the guidelines range and did not state what sentence

it would impose if the guidelines were held unconstitutional. In

these circumstances, the Government has not met its “arduous

burden” of showing that the error was harmless. United States v.

Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Accordingly, we vacate Arellano’s sentence and remand to

the district court for resentencing.

Arellano’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).

Although Arellano contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis

that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v.

Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

298 (2005). Arellano properly concedes that his argument is
No. 04-41444

-3-

foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but

he raises it here to preserve it for further review. 

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR

RESENTENCING.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANTS

Subsidiaries of Iridium World Communications Ltd.:
None

Subsidiaries of Iridium LLC:
Iridium Operating LLC
Iridium Aero Acquisition Sub, Inc.
Iridium Geolink LLC
Iridium Promotions Inc.

Subsidiaries of Iridium Operating LLC:
Iridium Capital Corporation
Iridium Roaming LLC
Iridium IP LLC
Iridium Facilities Corporation
Iridium (Potomac) LLC
Iridium Canada Facilities Inc.

Subsidiaries of Iridium IP LLC:
None

Subsidiaries of Iridium Roaming LLC:
None

Subsidiaries of Iridium Capital Corporation:
None

Subsidiaries of Iridium Facilities Corporation:
None
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsFeatures   Air Power
        
            FEATURES
 
 Keyword:
 Categories RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 Lines of Effort: Lines of EffortThe Air Force We NeedLethality and ReadinessBuilding Tomorrow's Air ForceFaster and SmarterLocal Priority
 Article Categories Article Categories2011 Appropriations Information2012 Appropriations Information9/11AF Chief of StaffAFAAFA 2012African American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29African American History MonthAFSO 21Air Force FamilyAir Force in SpaceAir Force StoriesAircraftAPP Airman VisualsAPP RSSChief Master Sgt. of the AFChief of Staff ArchiveColorado WildfireCommander's Call TopicsCommentariesDignified TransferDiversityDon't Ask Don't TellEnergyEnvironmentalEtchbergerExpeditionary OperationsFeaturesFiscal Year BudgetH1N1Haiti Earthquake ReliefHeritageHumanitarianHurricane IreneHurricane IsaacHurricane SandyMAJCOM NewsMission/TrainingOklahoma Tornado ReliefOperation Odyssey DawnOperation TomodachiPersonnel MattersSafetySecretary of the AFSequestration NewsSexual AssaultSpace/TechnologySports/RecreationSuicide PreventionThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their WordsTop StoriesTransition GPSWarrior CareWarrior GamesWeek in PhotosWomen's History Month 1-15Women's History Month 16-30
 Tags
 Start and End Date
 Date
 May 12, 2023Egyptian-born, American-proud
        All Airmen sacrifice to serve but not many travel halfway around the world to put service before self like Senior Airman Yosry Zaki.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1672 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 229
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1672

   To reauthorize the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2009

   Mr. Reed (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mrs. 
     Gillibrand, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Burr, Mr. 
 Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Lieberman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

                           December 16, 2009

              Reported by Mr. Bingaman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To reauthorize the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 2000.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Oilheat Research Alliance 
Reauthorization Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 713 of the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 2000 
(42 U.S.C. 6201 note; Public Law 106-469) is amended by striking ``the 
date that is 9 years after the date on which the Alliance is 
established'' and inserting ``February 6, 2011''.
                                                       Calendar No. 229

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1672

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To reauthorize the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 16, 2009

                       Reported without amendment
```
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer****and Principal Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. III
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jules
      Benge Prag IV, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
      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 the Company.





/s/
                Jules Benge Prag IV
              Jules
                Benge Prag IV
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              May
                14, 2008
From: john.friddle@eagleperformanceproducts.com

To: Emma Lavoie/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: RE: Your input on HBCD uses

Date: 03/03/2011 09:09 AM

Emma

I have surveyed my colleagues in the USA and Friendly competitors and

presented the HBCD /EPA plan

something like this:

1. removal from all consumer goods (definition of consumer is vague)

2. SNUR from all waterways

3. Restricted and highly managed in Polystyrene.

We discussed the Textile Market and came to this consensus

Textiles (water-based).

HBCD primary application use is for Nylon and Polyarimide based

textiles.

The end use of theses Textiles are for Military,Institutional, and

Aviation.

The short term use of HBCD has grown with the Deca phase-out

date in place.

Our recommendation is

 Llimit the use of HBCD to either the Markets We listed or to the

Fibers. We suggest a minimum of 3 years due to aviation and

Military long term planning.

Emma, I would prefer that we be quoted as a group of Textile

formulators and not as individuals.

I hope this helps

John Friddle

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Your input on HBCD uses

From: Lavoie.Emma@epamail.epa.gov

Date: Fri, February 11, 2011 5:00 pm

To: john.friddle@eagleperformanceproducts.com

John,

Thanks for talking with me about HBCD uses in textiles this past

Tuesday. Two questions for you:

1. Would you be willing to put your information in writing? Could we

cite you as a personal communication?

Here are my notes from our conversation:
HBCD is used in nylon or polyaramide textiles for military uses and

institutional/commercial products such as durable carpet tiles for

hospitals or prisons. HBCD is not used in consumer textiles, however we

need to define 'consumer textiles'.

HBCD use in general is increasing because it is a functional alternative

to decaBDE and decaBDE has a clear phase out timeline whereas HBCD does

not.

2. To what degree does your knowledge of HBCD uses in textiles cover

nationwide (USA) HBCD use? It would be helpful to know if there are

many or only a few compounders or processors, and how complete your

knowledge is about their activity.

Feel free to call me and discuss my questions. We can have a

conversation with our regulatory staff to give better context to our

need for your comments in writing if you would like.

-Emma

___________________________________

Emma T. Lavoie, PhD

Toxicologist

Design for the Environment Program - US EPA

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Tel: 202.564.0951 www.epa.gov/dfe
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1227 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect employer rights. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2009 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. WICKER, Mr. BUNNING, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect 

employer rights. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Truth in Employment 

5 Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that: 

8 (1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor9 management relationships is essential to a produc10 tive workplace and a healthy economy. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 1227 IS

1 (2) The tactic of using professional union orga2 nizers and agents to infiltrate a targeted employer’s 

3 workplace, a practice commonly referred to as ‘‘salt4 ing’’, has evolved into an aggressive form of harass5 ment not contemplated when the National Labor Re6 lations Act was enacted and threatens the balance of 

7 rights which is fundamental to the system of collec8 tive bargaining of the United States. 

9 (3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking 

10 employment with nonunion employers not because of 

11 a desire to work for such employers but primarily to 

12 organize the employees of such employers or to in13 flict economic harm specifically designed to put non14 union competitors out of business, or to do both. 

15 (4) While no employer may discriminate against 

16 employees based upon the views of employees con17 cerning collective bargaining, an employer should 

18 have the right to expect job applicants to be pri19 marily interested in utilizing the skills of the appli20 cants to further the goals of the business of the em21 ployer. 

22 SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 

23 The purposes of this Act are— 

24 (1) to preserve the balance of rights between 

25 employers, employees, and labor organizations which 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

•S 1227 IS

1 is fundamental to the system of collective bargaining 

2 of the United States; 

3 (2) to preserve the rights of workers to orga4 nize, or otherwise engage in concerted activities pro5 tected under the National Labor Relations Act; and 

6 (3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire 

7 individuals who seek or gain employment in order to 

8 disrupt the workplace of the employer or otherwise 

9 inflict economic harm designed to put the employer 

10 out of business. 

11 SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS. 

12 Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

13 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by adding after and below 

14 paragraph (5) the following: 

15 ‘‘Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requir16 ing an employer to employ any person who seeks or has 

17 sought employment with the employer in furtherance of 

18 other employment or agency status.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Terry, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), rendered October 24, 1989, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
FILED: January 9, 2024

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________ No. 20

- 4565 (L)

___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,

v. DRICKO DASHON HUSKEY, a/k/a Drizzy , Defendant

– Appell ant

.

___________________ O R D E R

___________________ The court amends its opinion filed January 8, 2024 , as follows: On page 2, the Decided date is corrected to read , “ January 8, 2024. ”

For the Court

-- By Direction
/s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk USCA4 Appeal: 20-4565 Doc: 140 Filed: 01/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Josef Meisels, Respondent, v Alexander Uhr, Also Known as Chaim Uhr, et al., Appellants, and Tzvi M. Ginsberg et al., Respondents. (Matter No. 1.) In the Matter of Alexander Uhr et al., Appellants, v Josef Meisels, Respondent. (Matter No. 2.)

Appeal by Alexander Uhr and Moses Uhr from (1) an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated September 13, 1989, in Matter No. 1, (2) an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court dated September 12, 1989, and (3) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court in Matter No. 1, dated November 14, 1989, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination in the order and judgment dated September 13, 1989.

Ordered that the appeal from the order and judgment dated September 13, 1989, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 14, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 14, 1989, and the order and judgment dated September 12, 1989, are affirmed, for reasons stated by Justice Golden at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur. *[See,*145 Misc 2d 571.]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jake M. Butler, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered March 13, 1986, convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (4 counts), forgery of a vehicle identification number (7 counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (2 counts), and sentencing him to concurrent prison terms of one year for each count charging third degree possession of stolen property, one to three years for each count charging forgery of a vehicle identification number, two to six years for third degree sale of a controlled substance, five years to life for second degree sale of a controlled substance, fifteen years to life for first degree sale of a controlled substance and twenty years to life for first degree sale of a controlled substance, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Additionally, we have reviewed the points raised in defendant’s *pro se*supplemental brief, to wit, that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel and that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial, and find that these issues are also frivolous.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of application for permission to appeal by the Judge of Justice first applied to is final and no new application may *399thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.