alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska Environmental Studies Program**  **http://www.boem.gov/akstudies/ Proposed Study for FY 2015**  Formatting Guidance: We recommend study profiles be less than 2 pages. Please do not try to make this a detailed scope of work. If the study is selected for further consideration, BOEM will prepare a more detailed scope of work. Please provide the following categories of information. **Region:** Sample Region **Planning Area(s ):**  All **Title:** Sample Title and Profile to Show Formatting **BOEM Information Need(s) to be Addressed:** Provide brief and conclusive reason(s) why BOEM needs the information. For example, identify how the study relates to analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and/or specific BOEM decision(s), such as formulation of a mitigation measure. Pl ease be as specific as possible. **Period of Performance:** FY 2015

- 20XX **Description:** Background : Please provide 1 to 2 paragraphs on relevant issues. Explain what information is required and provide pertinent background. Include details about whether this study ties in with other efforts, and if so, how. Include a description of the current status of information. That is, what is the level of adequacy of existing information, does any exist, does it need to be more geographically specific? Objectives : Clearly and succinctly state the objective(s) of the study. Explain what hypothesis will be tested or what questions will be answered by this study. We encourage the use of lists (1, 2, 3, etc.) for multiple, related objectives. Methods : Provide brief de tail on what information, techniques or methods are available that could be used. Explain how the objectives of the study will be accomplished. Date information is required : Provide dates when products would be most useful and for what purpose, such as “ Final report is needed by September 2016 to support NEPA analysis for planned lease sales in 2017 .” If the study includes products additional to the scientific report (e.g. database, model, bibliography), explain in this section.

* Please keep in mind that studies proposed for our consideration must address specific BOEM mission and decision needs

. For further information, see the Alaska Annual Studies Plan FY 2014 , poste d at the website listed above.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2197 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a certain ion exchange 

resin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a certain 

ion exchange resin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. A CERTAIN ION EXCHANGE RESIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.33 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 a certain ion exchange resin) is amended by striking ‘‘12/ 

7 31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2197 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE ex rel. Jack LYLES v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-2002.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Lyles, Jack; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 269-921.

Denied. Repetitive. See C.Cr.P. art. 930.4D.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10525

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DOUGLAS RAY DUNKINS, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:92-CR-10-3

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas Ray Dunkins, Jr., federal prisoner # 22619-077, was convicted of

of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and to

manufacture, to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute cocaine base

(crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He appeals the district court’s

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence.

We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision whether

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 15, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10525

2

to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28

(5th Cir. 1995). The court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has

been imposed except” in certain circumstances. § 3582(c). The court is

authorized to reduce a term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentencing range

has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission’s amendment to the Sentencing

Guidelines. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a), p.s.

In general, Amendment 706 reduced the base offense levels set forth in

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) applicable to crack cocaine offenses. However, the base

offense level for offenses involving 4.5 kilograms or more of crack cocaine is

unchanged. Dunkins was held accountable for more than 20 kilograms of crack

cocaine. As a result of a prior retroactive amendment to the Guidelines, his base

offense level was 38. Under the new amendments to § 2D1.1(c)(1), Dunkins’s

base offense level remains 38. Thus, his base offense level is unaffected by

Amendment 706 to § 2D1.1(c) and, concomitantly, the applicable guidelines

range of imprisonment was not lowered as a result of the amendment. Because

§ 3582(c)(2) authorizes a sentence reduction only when the sentencing range is

lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Dunkins’s motion for a reduction of sentence.

To the extent that Dunkins argues that the district court had the

discretion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2) in the light of United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we do not reach this argument because Dunkins

is not eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2).

Dunkins’s motion for further relief, seeking to correct his presentence

report, is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
#### James Edward BENT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-2240.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 7, 1987.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Cindy D’Agostino, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Amy Lynn Diem, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

However, we remand this cause for re-sentencing in accord with *Whitehead v. State,*498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986).

LETTS, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 82 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 82

 Condemning the assassination of Fernando Buesa and Jorge Diez Elorza, 
 Spanish nationals, by the Basque separatist group ETA, and expressing 
    the sense of the Congress that all violent actions by ETA cease.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 2000

   Mr. Dodd submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Condemning the assassination of Fernando Buesa and Jorge Diez Elorza, 
 Spanish nationals, by the Basque separatist group ETA, and expressing 
    the sense of the Congress that all violent actions by ETA cease.

Whereas on February 22, 2000, the Basque terrorist group ETA killed Fernando 
        Buesa, the leader of the Basque Socialist Party, and Jorge Diez Elorza, 
        a member of his escort, in a cowardly bomb attack;
Whereas this heinous crime displays absolute contempt for human rights and the 
        right to life by those individuals who practice terrorism and threaten 
        freedom, peace, liberty, and the peaceful coexistence of the Basque 
        people and the people of Spain; and
Whereas Spain is a democracy where the rule of law is enforced and terrorist 
        acts are not tolerated: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) strongly condemns and denounces those responsible for 
        the cowardly bombing that killed Fernando Buesa and Jorge Diez 
        Elorza;
            (2) strongly shares the determination of the Spanish people 
        that the perpetrators of this vile act will be brought swiftly 
        to justice so that Spain may demonstrate its opposition to acts 
        of terror;
            (3) calls again on ETA and those responsible for this act 
        to renounce violence and terrorism which have taken so many 
        lives; and
            (4) continues to cherish the strong friendship between 
        Spain and the United States.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 31, 2016

NO. 03-16-00531-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Sarah Christine Padon, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court. Having reviewed the record, the 

Court agrees that this appeal should be consolidated into cause number 03-16-00532-CR and that 

this cause should be dismissed. Therefore, the Court consolidates this cause, transfers all the 

records and filings in this cause number to cause number 03-16-00532-CR, and dismisses cause 

number 03-16-00531-CR. The costs will be assessed on the disposition of cause number 03-16-

00532-CR.
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      15, 2008 | /s/    Paul      Roszel                                       |
|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              |              Paul Roszel                  |
|              |             President, Chief Executive Officer |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 89 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 89

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    There is established a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as the ``joint committee'') 
consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Representatives, to be appointed by the 
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is authorized to 
make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the President-
elect and Vice President-elect of the United States on January 20, 
2001.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

    The joint committee--
            (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equipment and the 
        services of appropriate personnel of departments and agencies 
        of the Federal Government, under arrangements between the joint 
        committee and the heads of those departments and agencies, in 
        connection with the inaugural proceedings and ceremonies; and
            (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods and services to 
        carry out its responsibilities.

            Passed the Senate March 2, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 89

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies 
for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of 
                 the United States on January 20, 2001.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Partnership.
 By:
    
    /s/ FREDDIE M. KOTEKName:

    Freddie M. KotekTitle:

    Chairman of the Board of DirectorsChief Executive Officer and President
of the Managing General
PartnerDate:

    November 12, 2010
#### Howard McDOUGAL v. STATE.

8 Div. 352.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 28, 1986.

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1986.

Certiorari Denied April 25, 1986 Alabama Supreme Court 85-733.

Gary W. Alverson, Tuscumbia, for appellant.

*16Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and George Hardesty, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

Howard McDougal was convicted for assault in the first degree and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The assault occurred when the defendant, who was driving while intoxicated, ran a stop sign and collided with a car driven by Dwanah Lynn Stanley Bange. In such cases, assault in the second degree as defined by Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-6-21(a)(3) (recklessly causing serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument) is a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree under § 13A-6-20(a)(3) (causing serious physical injury to another by recklessly engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life). *Manning v. State,*471 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Cr.App.1985).

Here, requested instruction No. 1 was properly refused because the charge substituted the term “serious injury” for what should have been “serious physical injury.”

However, the defendant’s requested charge No. 2 defining second degree assault was virtually identical to the recommended instructions on assault in the second degree found in Alabama’s *Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal*developed by the Alabama Bar Institute for Continuing Legal Education, § III-C-2.2(b) (1980). Defense counsel properly objected to the refusal of his requested instruction and to the trial court’s oral charge under A.R.'Cr. P.Temp. Rule 14. It is fundamental that “[a]n individual accused of the greater offense has a right to have the court charge on the lesser offenses included in the indictment, when there is a reasonable theory from the evidence supporting his position.” *Chavers v. State,*361 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Ala.1978).

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                               RESOUND CORPORATION

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


RESOUND CORPORATION
220 Saginaw Drive
Seaport Centre
Redwood City, CA 94063
USA
Tel:  +650.780.7800
Fax: +650.367.0675

SONAR HEARING HEALTH CORPORATION
3140 Neil Armstrong Boulevard
Eagan, MN 55121
Tel:  800-921-2130

RESOUND PTY LTD.
Level 2, Suite 201
56 Berry Street
North Sydney NSW 2060
Australia
Tel: +61.2.9954.6071
Fax: +61.2.9959.5901

RESOUND ASIA LIMITED
Room 905, Beverly House
93-107 Lockhart Road
Wangchai, Hong Kong
Tel:  +852.2866.9762
Fax: +852.2529.1906

RESOUND-VIENNATONE HORTECHNOLOGIE GMBH
Frobelgasse 28
A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43.1.491.20.0
Fax: +43.1.491.20.20


Page 1


<PAGE>   2
                               RESOUND CORPORATION

                            SUBSIDIARIES (CONTINUED)


RESOUND-VIENNATONE SARL
La Defense Plus
41, Boulevard des Bouvets
F-92000 Nanterre, France
Tel: +33.1.46.98.98.98
Fax: +33.1.46.98.89.89

RESOUND-VIENNATONE HORTECHNOLOGIE AG & CO. OHG
Vahrenwalder Str. 219A
D-30165 Hannover, Germany
Tel: +49.511.63.47.17
Fax: +49.511.81.25.12

RESOUND DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
RESOUND GMBH HORTECHNOLOGIE
Dieckstrasse 57
D-48145 Munster, Germany
Tel: +49.251.928080
Fax: +49.251.9280844

RESOUND AUTAC GMBH
Industriestrasse 5
CH-5242 Birr-Lupfig
Switzerland
Tel: +41-56-4646868
Fax: +41-56-4646850

RESOUND IRELAND LTD.
Cork Business & Technology Park
Model Farm Road
Cork, Ireland
Tel: +353.21.344.411
Fax: +353.21.345.394


Page 2


<PAGE>   3
                               RESOUND CORPORATION

                            SUBSIDIARIES (CONTINUED)


RESOUND BV
Esdoornlaan 25
4902 TN Oosterhout,
The Netherlands
Tel: +31.1624.24770
Fax: +31.1624.24904

RESOUND AB
Gullbergs Strandgata 6
S-41104 Gothenburg,
Sweden
Tel: +46.31.800.150
Fax: +46.31.800.175

RESOUND-VIENNATONE LTD.
1 Weston Business Park
Weston-on-the-Green
Oxon, United Kingdom
Tel: +44.1869.343500
Fax: +44.1869.343466



Page 3
* 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 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40899

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUANA FORTUNA-TURBIARTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-133-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juana Fortuna-Turbiartes appeals the sentence imposed

following her guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Fortuna-Turbiartes contends that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are

unconstitutional. She therefore argues that her conviction must

be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8

U.S.C. § 1362(a), her judgment must be reformed to reflect a
No. 03-40899

-2-

conviction only under that provision, and her sentence must be

vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than

two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Fortuna-Turbiartes acknowledges that her arguments are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

She seeks to preserve her arguments 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). 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 an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 99.2(A)
                                 TO FORM 10-K OF
                           SEA PINES ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sea
Pines Associates, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
October 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  January 17, 2003                       /s/ Michael E. Lawrence
                                               -----------------------
                                               Michael E. Lawrence
                                               Chief Executive Officer

         This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed (filed) by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **GROVER SELLERS**  **ATTORNEY GENEnrr** 

HonorableBert **Ford,** kdmlnietrator Texas Liquor ControlBoard Austin, Texas D8ar Sir: Oplniaa 80.

we quote an follawm

**wea &wohibitad**  **Ln the** 

***2.. 16**  **it** neooaaat 

### arlglnal

eloot i **to allegs**  **an4 prom**  tha 

### en w tm moot 

### rqourt, aleotion in ridoh absolutepm%UbltiOrp was estabU.@ha&,en& to ohranalof&aaUjr p r s l r o ut

t he r8a alt a

o fa4bsoWUkt l

10 6- ‘ticmu $,a whioh the sale of bsar anLJ had baaa lsgallnced,

and that **lage4~izfng the**  sale of all alaohollc baveraWm hd **failed la**  **a vota**  **uptm the**  **Ssmae** aubaltted **to** the people9fioncuwbls Bert PxY%, page 2



### "3* wouldthere 

### bs surfioient **evld%mu to**  **EI** 

### oyd that~the 

### 861s of liquor1s uplawful a ahtnrlng that et a givein time an slso- 

### .tlon bad bean ~suoaesnfully carried to prohibit the sale of all alcohollo bev- ' oragse, and that oubeoqwntly no,

### elaotlori had bean bald In this wxmty hevlng the effeot ot la&elizlngthe aale of 

### liquor?* ‘&bile ws have not toun4 inny appellate

### CoupIdeoiofon In point u on the qIlertlom3 gmQlnmds4, we ba+s giran 0are;fUl. ~onaUaraJ on to the mme, and we hate raaohed tha foll~~#ring[ axloluaMr tHonorableRet Foxd, ps$e 3

wlth5.n the co~urity.

It ie OUP opinion that the legal .etatua ot fob 

### pr ocntuu (4%) beer was not altered bg the 1940 sladtlon;failure to 

### legeli all **liqUOrs did**  not =%$%%d prohibit the sale, etc..of the beer, nhics had beon by the 1939 sleotion.

APFROVXD %y 8. 3,