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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-20761

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBEN BEDOYA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(93-CR-265-1)

- - - - - - - - - - December 7, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Ruben Bedoya has appealed the $15,000 fine

that the district court imposed. That amount is the minimum under

U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c)(3), the applicable sentencing guideline in this

case.

Bedoya contends that imposition of the fine constituted plain

error, given that he is indigent and that the presentence report

(PSR) states that he “does not appear to have a net worth or net

monthly cash flow,” or any means of income.2

U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) commands that “[t]he court shall impose a

fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he

is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.”

See

, United States v. Martinez

, 151 F.3d 384, 395 (5th Cir. 1998),

petition for cert. filed (U.S. Oct. 26, 1998) (No. 98-6639).

Bedoya’s good health and relatively young age coupled with his

demonstrated managerial ability strongly indicate that he will be

able to pay his fine in the fut ure. Accordingly, the district

court’s imposition of the fine, without any defense objection, did

not constitute plain error. S ee United States v. Rodriguez

, 15

F.3d 408, 414-17 (5th Cir. 1994); Martinez , 151 F.3d at 395-96.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Scott Barek , certify that:

   1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
         Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, AIG Debenture-Backed Series
         2002-10 Trust (the "Trust");

   2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
         to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
         light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
         misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

   3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
         pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
         reports is included in these reports; and

   4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
         agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review
         required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports,
         the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under
         that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2008


/s/ Scott Barek
------------------------------------------
Scott Barek, Senior Vice President
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Airports Law Branch, AGC-610 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Mr. Raymond Veatch 

Re: Request for Extension of Time 

FAA Docket 16-08-12 

Mr. Veatch 

Q ) E C E B W 

MAR 2 3 2010 

/larcTTjQgpoftij^jWffONMENTAL 

LAW, AGC-600 

I have just received today, by USPS, a request from McMinn County MayprJohn £o 

Gentry, dated March 11, 2010. Mr. Gentry has requested an extension of^fifne, to-^ 

the appeal submitted by Mr. Fenrell and myself. As required by 14 CFR P&irt 16, ^ 

Certificate of Service dated January 11, 2010 accompanied the appeal. 

Neither Mr. Ferrell nor I are attorneys, nor do we have access to the services of 

our County Attorney. The Federal Aviation Administration has been clear about 

the requirements that the other party may file a reply to an appeal within 20 days 

after the date of service of the appeal. By any generous measure, County Mayor 

Gentry should have responded by no later than February 5, 2010. 

The need for this request cleariy illustrates the continued lack of commitment and 

urgency we have constantly encountered from County Mayor Gentry as we have 

tried to encourage McMinn County to take substantial steps to improving 

management of the airport. 

While County Mayor Gentry expresses his confusion that a "fomriar appeal has 

been made, his reference to our request for oversight by the FAA would seem to 

contradict his assertion. 

Mr. Ferrell and I have pursued this issue for only one reason - a lack of concern 

and repeated failure by McMinn County to ensure continued compliance with 

Federal Aviation Administration requirements. These failures directly affect flight 

and public safety. 

Mr. Ferrell and I believe it is imperative to offer the Federal Aviation 

Administration and McMinn County the maximum opportunity to bring this matter 

to a isatisfactory resolution for all involved. 
Therefore, in consultation with Mr. Ferrell, we will support any extension for time 

to McMinn County Mayor Gentry deemed appropriate by the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

Respectfully, 

William K Keyei 

Cc: County Mayor John Gentry 

Mr. DeWittT. Ferrell
U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Patricia Stout President and CEO The Alamo Travel Group, LP 8930 Wurzbach Road SanAntonio, Texas 78240

DearMs. Stout: GENERAL COUNSEL October 21, 2014 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Comment submittedto Docket DOT-OST-2014-0056

Tha.Tlk you for your letter to Secretary ofTransportation Anthony Foxx expressing your views about the U.S. Department of Transportation's May 23, 2014; notice ofproposed rulemaking covering various consumer protection issues, including issues related to the transparency of airline ancillary service fees. Secretary Foxx asked me to respond onhis behalf. We appreciate you taking the time to provide comments on the proposals. All ofthe comments received, including yours, will be considered when making a final determination on the proposals. In accordance with Department rules applicable to pending proceedings, a copy ofyour letter was placed in ourrulemaking docket. A copy ofthis response will also be placed in the docket. IfI can provide additional information orassistance, please feel free to contactme.
Sincerely,

Blane A. Workie ActingAssistant General Counsel for

AviationEnforcement and Proceedings
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rodriguez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New *175York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered on January 5, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of four years to life, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 April 2006 — Camós Grau v Commission

(Case T-309/03) (1)

(Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning the management and funding of the Institute for Europeon and Latin American Relations (IRELA) - Potential conflict of interest on the part of an investigator - Removal from the investigating body - Impact on the conduct of the investigation and the content of the report of the investigation - Report terminating the investigation - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Action for damages - Admissibility)

(2006/C 131/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Manel Camós Grau (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and C. Ladenburger, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for the annulment of the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 17 October 2002 terminating the investigation concerning the Institute for Europeon and Latin American Relations (IRELA) and, secondly, for compensation for non-material damage and damage to the applicant's employment prospects claimed to have arisen by virtue of that report

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

----
#### LEWIS v. STATE.

No. 25394.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The appeal is from a conviction of murder without malice with the punishment assessed by the court at 5 years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts appears in the record, in the absence of which we are unable to appraise the bills of exception.

All proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Case 6:20-cv-00458-ADA Document 2 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5185 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on yttrium oxide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. MARINO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty 

on yttrium oxide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. YTTRIUM OXIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.21 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 yttrium oxide) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘Yttrium oxides having a purity 

8 of at least 99.9 percent’’ in the article description 

9 and inserting ‘‘Yttrium oxide’’; and 

10 (2) by striking the date in the effective period 

11 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5185 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Appellant, v Great Bend Aggregates, Inc., Respondent.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation appropriated an easement across respondent’s property for the purpose of erecting, operating and maintaining one electric transmission line, including three conductors, one cable and supporting apparatus. The trial court, after a nonjury trial, awarded respondent the sum of $31,500 plus interest as compensation for the taking. The award was based in part on the trial court’s finding that the easement was equivalent to a taking in fee in that it resulted in a 100% diminution of the value of the property. That was error. Since the easement reserved to respondent the absolute right to ingress and egress across the parcel, the right to cultivate, and the right to construct roads and utility lines across the easement so long as they did not interfere with existing transmission lines, it is not equivalent to a taking in fee *(see, County of Onondaga v Sargent,*92 AD2d 743, *appeal dismissed*59 NY2d 967; *Clark v State of New York,*20 AD2d 182, *affd*15 NY2d 990; *Jafco Realty Corp. v State of New York,*18 AD2d 74, *affd*14 NY2d 556; *cf, Kravec v State of New York,*40 NY2d 1060). From our *851review of the record, we conclude that the easement resulted in damages equal to 90% of the value of the property *(see, e.g., Lorig v State of New York,*58 AD2d 734, *Iv denied*43 NY2d 641; *Gustafson v State of New York,*76 Mise 2d 260, 265, *affd*56 AD2d 695). We therefore remit this matter to the trial court for entry of judgment. Further, should the petitioner subsequently alter or increase its use of the easement, it would be subject to a subsequent action by respondent for a de facto taking *(see, Lorig v State of New York, supra).*

We have considered petitioner’s other contentions raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.— condemnation.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1



                                  AMENDMENT TO

                       1991 PERFORMANCE STOCK OPTION PLAN


                  WHEREAS, the 1991 Performance Stock Option Plan (the "Plan")
has been established by AT Holdings Corporation ("Holdings") and Argo-Tech
Corporation ("Argo-Tech"); and

                  WHEREAS, Holdings and Argo-Tech deem it desirable to amend the
Plan;

                  NOW THEREFORE, effective June 12, 2001, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows:

                  The third sentence of Paragraph 3 shall be deleted in its
entirety and there shall be substituted therefor the following: "No option shall
be exercised after November 9, 2011, and options not exercised by November 9,
2011 shall be automatically forfeited."


                  Executed at Cleveland, Ohio, this 12th day of June, 2001.


                                               AT HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                                               By:   /s/  Paul R. Keen
                                                     ---------------------------

                                               Its:  Vice President
                                                     ---------------------------


                                               ARGO-TECH CORPORATION

                                               By:   /s/ Paul R. Keen
                                                     ---------------------------

                                               Its:  Vice President
                                                     ---------------------------
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**
 
 
 In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Hotel Outsource Management
International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Jacob Ronnel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:
 
 (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.
 
 
 By:
      /s/ Jacob RonnelJacob
      Ronnel, Chief Executive OfficerHotel
      Outsource Management International, Inc.April
      14, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Lyman Avery, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Montgomery County,

January 3, 1958.

*Charles A. Drahe*for plaintiff.

*Bernard T. McGivern*for defendant.

Felix J. Atjlisi, J.

The defendant, Lyman Avery, who is the County Treasurer of Hamilton County, has been indicted by the Grand Jury of said county for neglect of duty in violation of section 1841 of the Penal Law in that he failed to remove his deputy after learning that said deputy had taken and appropriated to his own use sums of money belonging to the county and further that the defendant failed to include his own real property in the tax sale notice although he had not paid his taxes for two years.

The Grand Jury had been empanelled by order of the TTa.milton County Court, made its report to said court and the afore-mentioned indictment is now pending in said court.

In this motion the defendant asks that this court set aside the indictment upon the ground that there was no competent ■legal evidence before the Grand Jury to sustain the indictment, or in the alternative to permit him to inspect the minutes of *142the Grand Jury, or in the alternative to permit him to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the indictment for the purpose of interposing a demurrer to same.

The indictment has not been transferred to the Supreme Court and I doubt that I have power and jurisdiction to pass on this application. The defendant argues to the contrary for the reason that the Supreme Court is a court of general and unlimited State-wide jurisdiction. It is true that the power of the Supreme Court is extensive but I believe that to attempt to assume jurisdiction in this case, in the absence of any statutory authority, would be an abuse of discretion and tend to disrupt and interfere with the orderly administration of justice.

Here all of the proceedings have been in the County Court. The Grand Jury was empanelled by the County Judge. líe charged the jury, received its indictments and in general was responsible for its conduct. The Hamilton County Court remains in possession and control of the records of the proceedings held there. A motion for inspection must be made in the court in which the proceedings were had and the testimony was taken *(People ex rel. Hirschberg*v. *Supreme Court, 269 N.*Y. *392; Matter of Schneider*v. *Aulisi,*307 N. Y. 376).

A reading of section 952-t of the Code of Criminal Procedure .further convinces me that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in this case. The pertinent part of said section states in effect that the minutes of the Grand Jury proceedings must be kept secret *“ except upon the written order of the court duly made*I am of the opinion that the word “ court *”*in the quotation is intended to mean the court in which the proceedings were had and the testimony taken.

The defendant can obtain all the relief he seeks in the Supreme Court from the Hamilton County Court under the provisions of section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I, therefore, conclude and decide that the motion herein should be denied without prejudice.

An order may be submitted accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5390 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5390

    To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Solvent Yellow 160:1.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

  Ms. Fudge introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Solvent Yellow 160:1.

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

SECTION 1. SOLVENT YELLOW 160:1.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Solvent Yellow      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          160:1 (CAS No.                                                    12/31/2015
                          35773-43-4)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3204.19.11)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5376 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Altuglas BS 100 beads, BS 110 

beads, and BS 130 beads. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. FITZPATRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Altuglas BS 100 

beads, BS 110 beads, and BS 130 beads. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALTUGLAS BS 100 BEADS, BS 110 BEADS, AND 

4 BS 130 BEADS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5376 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Altuglas BS 100 beads 

(CAS No. 9010–88–2) 

(provided for in subheading 3906.10.00), BS 

110 beads (CAS No. 

25034–86–0) (provided for 

in subheading 3906.90.50), 

and BS 130 beads (CAS 

No. 9010–88–2) (provided 

for in subheading 

3906.10.00) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
From: Ernie Kim (via Google Drive) on behalf of Ernie Kim (via Google Drive) 

To:

Subject: Giddy Marketing Calendar 2020 v2.xlsx

Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:25:09 AM

 has shared the following spreadsheet:

Giddy Marketing Calendar 2020 v2.xlsx

Open

Google Drive: Have all your files within reach from any device. 

Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA

Giddy-00006

Case 1:20-cv-00434-DAE-ML Document 66-7 Filed 08/12/21 Page 1 of 3
From: Ernie Kim (via Google Docs) on behalf of Ernie Kim (via Google Docs) 

To:

Subject: PR Stunt Ideas - Invitation to edit

Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 10:11:53 AM

has invited you to edit the following document:

PR Stunt Ideas

Open in Docs

Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. 

Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA

You have received this email because someone shared a document with you from

Google Docs.

Giddy-00010

Case 1:20-cv-00434-DAE-ML Document 66-7 Filed 08/12/21 Page 2 of 3
Event Description IP Address Date Login Type

Ernie Kim logged out 104.54.193.213 Jul 27, 2020, 11:36:32 AM CDT Google Password 104-54-193-213.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net

Ernie Kim logged in 104.54.193.213 Jul 23, 2020, 2:34:45 PM CDT Google Password 104-54-193-213.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net

Ernie Kim logged in 104.54.193.213 Apr 29, 2020, 12:55:16 PM CDT Google Password 104-54-193-213.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net

Ernie Kim failed to login 2605:6001:e48b:4e00:e406:9771:bfb:1e28 Apr 13, 2020, 11:28:50 AM CDT Unknown Garland Texas

Ernie Kim failed to login 2605:6001:e48b:4e00:7905:3f62:408a:e81c Apr 9, 2020, 1:36:16 PM CDT Unknown https://tools.keycdn.com/geo?host=2605%3A6001%3Ae48b%3A4e00%3Ae406%3A9771%3Abfb%3A1e28

GIDDY000183

Case 1:20-cv-00434-DAE-ML Document 66-7 Filed 08/12/21 Page 3 of 3