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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. 07-30455 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ARTHUR WILLIAMS, also known as Pop Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:93-CR-10012-6
Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arthur Williams, federal prisoner # 08395-035, was convicted by a jury in 1993 of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine base (crack) and two counts ofaiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and crack. He was sentenced in 1994 to 250 months of imprisonment. Af ter filing several meritless postconviction motions in the court of conviction and the district court f or the district in which he was incarcerated, United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-30455

2 Williams filed in the court of c onviction a purported Rule 35 motion seeking a reduction in his sentence. The version of Rule 35 that was in effect when Williams was convicted and sentenced provided that a district court could (a)
correct a sentence on remand, (b) reduce a sentence on the motion of the Government, or (c) “correct a sentence that was impo sed as a result of arithmetical, technical, or other clear error” if it acted within seven days after imposing the sentence. F E D

. R. C RIM

. P. 35(a)-(c) (West 1994). Williams’s motion met none of these conditions. A defendant’s motion cannot be considered a Rule 35 motion to correct or reduce his sentence when his motion and situation do not fit any provision of that Rule. U nited Statesv. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). As Williams has already been denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the district court would have lacked jurisdiction to reduce Williams sentence under ei ther Rule 35 or § 2255. See § 2255;United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512, 518-19 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court denied and dismissed Williams’s motion with prejudice without mentioningjurisdiction; however, its dismissal was presumably on that ground. Seee.g., Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355-63 (1993) (where the basis for jurisdiction is statutory, failure to meet the statutory criteria means that the court lacks jurisdiction). We affirm the district court’s judgment. This c ourt has already warned Williams that he may no longer file successive § 2255 moti ons that do not comport with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Williams is now cautioned that any future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will invite additional sanctions, including monetary penaltiesand limitson his access tofederal court, as will the failure to withdraw any pending matters that are frivolous. AFFIRMED: SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### Jacob J. CHATELAIN v. PROJECT SQUARE 221, a Louisiana Partnership in Commendam, Gerald D. Hines *&*Associates and Gerald D. Hines, Individually.

No. 87-C-1116.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Chatelain, Jacob J.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5422; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “C”, No. 83-5001.

Prior report: La.App., 505 So.2d 177.

Denied.
exv10w4



 






Ex. 10.4




March 4, 2005




Mr. Thomas J. Morris

TradeMark Consulting, Co

819 Equestrian Drive

Rockwall, TX 75032



RE:      SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT




Dear Tom:




          This letter amends the Consulting Agreement between Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and TradeMark
Consulting, Co effective March 4, 2005 as follows:





1. Under Section 1, the term of the Consulting Agreement is extended to March 15, 2006.




2. Except as amended by the First and this Second Amendment, the terms and provisions of the
Consulting Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SILVERLEAF RESORTS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	BY:
	 	/S/ ROBERT E. MEAD	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Robert E. Mead, CEO	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
	 	 
	TRADEMAR K CONSULTING, CO
	 	 
	 
		 	 	 
	By:

		/S/ THOMAS J. MORRIS
	 	 
	 		 	 	 
	 

		Thomas J. Morris
[No. 35985-1-I.

Division One.

August 26, 1996.]

#### Terry Carney, *Appellant,*v. William Kwan, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-2-15821-1, Liem E. Tuai, J., entered December 28, 1994. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Webster and Becker, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: William K. Green v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00960-CR

Trial court case number: 717215

Trial court: 180th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, William K. Green’s, brief was originally due on January 2, 2015. No response 

was received to our notice that the brief was overdue. Accordingly, on February 26, 2015, this 

Court issued an order, abating the appeal and directing the trial court to hold a hearing to 

determine whether Green wished to pursue his appeal, and if so, whether he had made 

arrangements for a brief to be filed. The hearing record and supplemental clerk’s record were 

filed in March and indicated that the trial court had given Green 30 days to hire counsel. No

attorney made an appearance on behalf of Green. Thus, on April 28, 2015, this Court issued an 

order stating that we would consider Green to be pro se, and ordering him to file his brief by 

May 28, 2015. No brief was filed.

On September 22, 2015, this Court issued another abatement order, directing the trial 

court to hold a hearing to determine whether Green wished to pursue his appeal, and if so, 

whether he had made arrangements to file a brief. During the hearing, Green advised the trial 

judge he had hired an attorney, Patrick Michael Megaro. Accordingly, this Court issued an 

order, directing Mr. Megaro to file a brief. On December 4, 2015, Mr. Megaro advised this 

Court he had not been retained by Green.

Because no attorney has made an appearance on behalf of Green, we consider him to be 

pro se. Green was admonished by the trial court of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding 

pro se on this appeal. 

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, with no further 

extensions. If no brief is filed by that date, the Court may set the case at issue and decide the 

appeal without briefs. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 8, 2015
III

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 387

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 15 (legislative day, MAY 9), 2002

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the American Society of Civil Engineers for

reaching its 150th Anniversary and for the many vital

contributions of civil engineers to the quality of life of

our Nation’s people including the research and development projects that have led to the physical infrastructure

of modern America.

Whereas, founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil

Engineers is the Nation’s oldest national engineering

society;

Whereas civil engineers work to constantly improve buildings, water systems, and other civil engineering

works through research, demonstration projects, and
2

HCON 387 RFS

the technical codes and standards developed by the

American Society of Civil Engineers;

Whereas the American Society of Civil Engineers incorporates educational, scientific, and charitable efforts

to advance the science of engineering, improve engineering education, maintain the highest standards of

excellence in the practice of civil engineering, and ensure the public health, safety, and welfare;

Whereas the American Society of Civil Engineers represents the profession primarily responsible for the

design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation’s roads, bridges, airports, railroads, public buildings, mass transit systems, resource recovery systems, water systems, waste disposal and treatment

facilities, dams, ports and waterways and other public facilities that are the foundation on which the Nation’s economy stands and grows; and

Whereas the Nation’s civil engineers, through innovation

and the highest professional standards in the practice

of civil engineering, protect the public health and

safety and ensure the high quality of life enjoyed by

the Nation’s citizens: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) acknowledges the American Society of Civil

4 Engineers for its 150th Anniversary;

5 (2) commends the many achievements of the

6 Nation’s civil engineers; and

7 (3) encourages the American Society of Civil

8 Engineers to continue its tradition of excellence in
3

HCON 387 RFS

1 service to the profession of civil engineering and to

2 the public.

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
| 1. | I am a duly authorized officer of BMW Financial Services NA, LLC; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | I have reviewed the terms of that certain Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 30, 1995 (the “Basic Servicing Agreement”), between Financial Services Vehicle Trust (the “Trust”) and BMW Financial              Services NA, LLC, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), as supplemented by the 2022-1 Servicing Supplement, dated as of January 19, 2022 (together with the Basic Servicing Agreement, the “Servicing Agreement”), among the Trust, BMW              Manufacturing L.P., as grantor and initial beneficiary of the Trust, and BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as sponsor and as Servicer, and I have made, or have caused to be made under my supervision, a review of the activities of the Servicer              and the performance of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement during the period from January 19, 2022 to December 31, 2022; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3. | to the best of my knowledge, based on the review described in paragraph 2 above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects during the              period from January 19, 2022 to December 31, 2022. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  |  |
|--|--|
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-51241

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS ANTONIO JAIME-JUAREZ, also known as El Memil,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-1911-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Antonio Jaime-Juarez appeals from his conviction of illegal 

reentry following removal. He contends that his sentence of 87 months of 

imprisonment, which was within the applicable guideline sentencing range, 

was substantively unreasonable. Jaime-Juarez did not object to the 

reasonableness of his sentence in the district court and therefore our review is 

* 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

November 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-51241 Document: 00512450538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2013
No. 12-51241

for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 

2007). 

Jaime-Juarez’s contention that sentences calculated under the illegal 

reentry guideline are not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, is 

foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009) 

(affirming a within-guideline sentence following conviction of illegal reentry

and rejecting Appellant’s argument that this Court must examine the 

empirical basis for the relevant Sentencing Guidelines provision before 

affording a presumption of reasonableness to the within-guideline sentence). 

Jaime-Juarez’s argument that his sentence is unreasonable because his offense 

was a mere international trespass is likewise foreclosed by this Circuit’s 

precedent. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 

2008) (rejecting argument that the Appellant’s 87 month prison sentence for 

illegal reentry was unreasonable because the offense was “no more than simple 

trespass.”).

Finally, the district court rejected the argument that Jamie-Juarez was 

unable to comprehend that reentry into the United States could have serious 

consequences, as Jaime-Juarez had been convicted of illegal reentry once 

before and had been admonished to this effect. Jaime-Juarez has not shown 

that the district court’s finding in this regard amounts to plain error.

Jaime-Juarez has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness 

given to his within-range sentence. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 

553-54 (5th Cir. 2006). He has failed to show error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-51241 Document: 00512450538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2013
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-850]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of 
employees from the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, as an addition to 
the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On December 21, 
2011, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees 
as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 
agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the 
Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, during the period from January 1, 
1958 through December 31, 1983, for a number of work days 
aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under 
this employment or in combination with work days within the 
parameters established for one or more other classes of employees 
included in the SEC.

    This designation will become effective on January 20, 2012 unless 
Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this 
effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any 
provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to 
the SEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia 
Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1-(877) 222-7570. 
Information requests can also be submitted by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bffbfcfeecfffcfbfc91f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0e4e3e1f3e0e3e4e38ee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-850 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT      32.2 **

**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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                 |                                                              |                                |
|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Dated                this 9th day of February, 2007. | By:                                                     | /s/                Jibin Zhang |
|                                                 | Jibin                Zhang Chief                Financial Officer |

----
EXHIBIT 23.1





| | 
| | 



Date: August 14, 2023



TG Venture Acquisition Corp. (“TGVC”)



1390 Market Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, California 94102

(628) 251-1369



Dear Sir/Madam:



We are a qualified law firm and lawyers in the People’s
Republic of China (“PRC”, which, for purposes of this consent only, does not include the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region of the PRC, the Macau Special Administrative Region of the PRC or the Taiwan Region), and we have been engaged by TGVC as its PRC
legal counsel to advise on certain legal matters related to the laws and regulations of the PRC.



We hereby consent to the use of this consent as an
exhibit to the Form 10-K, as amended, to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). We further
consent to the use of our name and to all references made to us in the Form 10-K, reply to the SEC and in the annual report forming a
part thereof.



|Very truly yours,       | 
|----------------------- | 
|                        | 
|/s/ Han Kun Law
Offices | 
|Han Kun Law Offices     |
Joyce Ide UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

November 7, 2013

Shasta Lake Gateway Library 4150 Asby Court ShastaLake, California 96019 Subject:

DearMs. Ide: Request to retain public documents atthe Shasta Lake Gateway Library for public inspection

The purpose ofthis letter is to request that the ShastaLake Gateway Library retain the enclosed documents at the library for at least sixty (60) days for public inspection. These documents are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's preliminary decision for the proposed Clean AirAct Prevention ofSignificant Deteriorationpermit for the expansion ofthe Sierra Pacific Industries facility located in Anderson, California. These documents are currently available for public comment. Please contact me at (415) 947-4156 orkelly.shaheerah@epa.gov ifyouhave any questions.

Enclosures

# ~~t~Jr; 

# ./ /lft//0 Shaheerah Kelly, Environmental Engineer Air Division, Permits Office
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Planning Grants and Implementation Cooperative Agreements.                    

*Date:*                         May 3, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         10 a.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 3264, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lakshmi Ramachandra, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 2217, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-496-2550,                         *Ramachandral@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated:  April 4, 2012.

Anna P. Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-8696 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P