alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-30978

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES RAY BURTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Louisiana

(95-CR-60048)

______________________________________________

September 19, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Ray Burton appeals from his conviction for possession

with intent to distribute cocaine, complaining of insufficiency of

the evidence, the district court’s denial of his motion to

suppress, and the sufficiency of the jury instructions. Our review
2

of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us that

no reversible error was committed. The evidence was not

insufficient. See United States v. Ivey, 929 F.2d 759, 766 (5th

Cir. 1991). The district court did not err by denying Burton’s

motion to suppress based on Burton’s claim that the automobile stop

was improper. See Wren v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772

(1996). Nor did the district court commit plain error in failing

to find that his consent to search was involuntary. See Robertson

v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995) (plain error

standard). Finally, the district court did not commit plain error

in failing to instruct the jury that it had dismissed one count of

the indictment. See United States v. Calverly, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 731-37 (1993)).

AFFIRMED.
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2628-066]
 On November 23, 2021, as supplemented,[1]
                    
                     the Alabama Power Company filed an application for a new major license for the 135-megawatt R.L. Harris Hydroelectric Project No. 2628 (Harris Project or project). On March 31, 2023, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the effects of relicensing the Harris Project. The notice included an anticipated schedule for issuing the draft and final EIS. On April 18, 2024, staff issued a notice of revised procedural schedule for preparing a draft and final EIS. By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule for completing the draft EIS. The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone
Target dateIssue draft EIS
November 2024.
 Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Sarah Salazar at (202) 502-6863 or 
                    *sarah.salazar@ferc.gov.* Dated: September 9, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         The final license application filed November 23, 2021, was supplemented on March 23, 2022, June 15, 2022, and December 27, 2022. Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2024-20833 Filed 9-12-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 250 

To prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting any Department of Defense 

position at, or in support of, a public shipyard. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Ms. HASSAN, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. HIRONO, and Ms. 

CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting any Department 

of Defense position at, or in support of, a public shipyard. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON HIRING FREEZE FROM AF4 FECTING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PUBLIC 

5 SHIPYARD POSITIONS. 

6 The memorandum titled ‘‘Presidential Memorandum 

7 Regarding the Hiring Freeze’’ published on January 23, 

8 2017, or any other substantially similar memorandum, 

9 Executive order, or other action by the President to pre10 vent a department or agency of the Federal Government 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 250 IS

1 from filling vacant Federal civilian employee positions or 

2 creating new such positions, shall have no force or effect 

3 with respect to any Department of Defense civilian posi4 tion under which an employee performs a Department of 

5 Defense function at a public shipyard or a Department 

6 of Defense function that directly supports a public ship7 yard. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EBONY BUTLER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 2386

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 22, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Terry P. Lewis , Judge

.

Baya Harrison, Monticello , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Quentin Humphrey, Assistant

Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., WETHERELL and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2536 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2536

 To make daylight savings time permanent for the State of Florida, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2018

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make daylight savings time permanent for the State of Florida, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Sunshine State Act''.

SEC. 2. MARKING DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME PERMANENT FOR THE STATE OF 
              FLORIDA.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Act of March 19, 1918, (commonly 
known as the ``Calder Act'') (15 U.S.C. 261) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), in the second sentence, by inserting 
        ``in subsection (c) of this section and'';
            (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
            (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
    ``(b) Exception.--The standard time of the State of Florida shall 
be Coordinated Universal Time retarded by 4 hours.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 
1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Exemption.--This section shall not apply to the State of 
Florida.''.
                                 <all>
```
* 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 30, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20283

Summary Calendar

CIPRIANO YANEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

USDC No. 4:04-CV-4604

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cipriano Yanez (“Yanez”) filed a claim under the Social

Security Act for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). An

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Yanez’s claim and the

Appeals Council affirmed the decision of the ALJ. Treating the

decision of the Appeals Council as the final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security, Yanez filed suit in the district

court for the Southern District of Texas seeking judicial review
of the Commissioner’s decision. Yanez and the Commissioner filed

cross motions for summary judgment, and the matter was referred

to a Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation. The

Magistrate Judge recommended that Yanez’s motion for summary

judgment be denied, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary

judgment be granted. The district court adopted the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation and entered final judgment dismissing

Yanez’s action. Yanez appeals to this Court. 

Our review is limited to determining (1) whether there is

substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the

Commissioner’s decision, and (2) whether the Commissioner’s

decision comports with relevant legal standards. Jones v. Apfel,

174 F.3d 692, 693 (5th Cir. 1999). We have carefully reviewed

the briefs, the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the

record itself. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s

Memorandum and Recommendation, as adopted by the district court,

we affirm the decision of the district court to enter final

judgment against Yanez.

AFFIRMED.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS OlFF-p^^e^i^'gWAWTOLSTATIONsAyS^^^Sj^TiL" STATE OF TEXAS ~ ' •---••• PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE Vj^Sff" '&S?:liSTAGE»RTNEYBOWES

ZIP 78701 02 w 0001401603NOV 05 2015 11/4/2015 :& 

## TUCKER, EDWARD CHARLES^^rTCj^b. 241|2005-07-D The Court hasdismissed withoutiwritten^'ord.erthjs subsequent application 

### ofhabeas corpus. TEX. CODE CR*MgPR©g^rt. 11.07, Sec. 4(a)-(c). -^csszz^^ Abel Acosta, Clerk WR-74,501-07 for a writ

43B -75-785 

### EDWARD CHARLES TUCKER w ^ 

### HODGE UNIT

-TDC #1495137 ^r 

## P.O. BOX999 -ty RUSK, TX 75785


## i/H'fH^lltlllM'liH^IIlW1^!!-1^!!!-!-!"!--*-!*!!!!!!"!!""-!'
EXHIBIT 4.12


EXHIBIT 4.12




ITEC ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC.







October 11, 2004







PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL




Mr. Andrea Videtta

693 Hi Tec Parkway, Suite 3

Oakdale, California 95361




RE:

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION AGREEMENT




Dear Andrea:




We are very pleased that you have agreed to continue as a member of the Board of Directors of Itec Environmental Group, Inc. ("Itec"), and are writing to set forth the general terms of your compensation as a director. The terms of your compensation are, of course, subject to future modification by the Board.




Your term as a director will run through the next annual meeting of shareholders of Itec.  As compensation for your services, you will receive a one-time issuance of seven million five hundred thousand (7,500,000) shares of common stock, which stock shall be registered on Form S-8.




If the proposed terms are acceptable to you, please sign below and return the signed copy of this Agreement to me.







Very truly yours,




ITEC ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC.




By: /s/ Gary De Laurentiis

    

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

Name: Gary De Laurentiis

Its: CEO




Agreed and accepted:




/s/ Andrea Videtta

Andrea Videtta




45
#### CASTON v. STATE.

No. 19759.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 11, 1938.

Joe Mills, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Medite Cancer Diagnostics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michaela Ott, as 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 By:
/s/ Michaela Ott
Dated:
September 7, 2016Michaela OttTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 This certification is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered
into as of this 21th day of August 2008, by and between CHROMADEX INC., a California
corporation (“Employer”), and FRANK L JAKSCH, JR., an individual (“Employee”).



R E C I T A L S




A. On April 14, 2008, Employer and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement which
provides for the employment by Employer of Employee (the “Original Employment Agreement”).



B. Employer and Employee now desire to amend the Employment Agreement in certain respects
only, on the terms of this Amendment.



A G R E E M E N T




In consideration of the foregoing recitals and of the mutual covenants and conditions
contained herein, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree to amend the Employment
Agreement as follows:



1. The following paragraph is added to the Employment Agreement as Section 8(i) to the
Employment Agreement:



(i) Application of Section 409A — Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in this Agreement, solely to the extent that such delay is required in
order to avoid the imposition of an excise tax under Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), if Employee is a “specified
employee” for purposes of Section 409A(a)(2)(B) of the Code, any payments to be made
pursuant to this Agreement that are considered to be non-qualified deferred
compensation distributable in connection with the Employee’s separation from service
with Employer for purposes of Section 409A of the Code, and which otherwise would
have been payable at any time during the six-month period immediately following
Employee’s separation from service with Employer, shall not be paid prior to, and
shall instead be payable in a lump sum within ten (10) business days following the
end of such six-month period. The parties agree that in the event the Internal
Revenue Service issues additional guidance to the effect that any of the payments
provided for in this Agreement would not be in compliance with Section 409A of the
Code, the parties will negotiate in good faith to address such guidance so that such
payments are compliant with Section 409A of the Code to the extent reasonably
practicable.


 


 









 







2. This Amendment along with the Employment Agreement constitute the sole and entire
agreements of the parties relating to the subject matter contained therein. To the extent there is
any inconsistency between this Amendment and the Employment Agreement, the provisions of this
Amendment shall be controlling.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth
above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	“EMPLOYER”:	 	“EMPLOYEE”:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	CHROMADEX, INC.,

a California corporation	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By: 

	/s/ Stephen Block	 	/s/ Frank L Jaksch, Jr.
	 

	 
	 	 
	 

	Its: 	Director/Chair

of Compensation Committee	 	FRANK L JAKSCH, JR.







 


2
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-11-0619

SAT Date: 9/16/2011

Print Date: 10/3/2012

Related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 2

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 1 2

1 1 1

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: MUTA; LIVER; KIDNEY; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-11-0619-20

FATE: Estimations for 

log Kow = -9.66 (E)

log Koc = 1.64 (E)

log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E)

log Fish BAF = -0.05 (E)

FATE: Estimations for 

log Kow = -2.38 (E)

log Koc = 0.00 (E)

log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E)
log Fish BAF = -0.05 (E)

PMN Substance: Solid 

S > 10 g/L at 25 C (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 90 via biodeg; 90 via biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk; wk

Sorption to soils/sediments = low; low

PBT Potential: P1B1; P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = rapid; rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Not absorbed from the skin, absorbed from the lung 

(pchem), absorbed from the GI tract (analog). Concern for mutagenicity, liver, and kidney 

toxicity based on data reviewed for [rat 90-d oral (diet) NOEL = 2400 ppm (170 

mg/kg/d M, 240 mg/kg/d F)].

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 >100

daphnid 48-h LC50 >100

green algal 96-h EC50 20

fish _ chronic value >10

daphnid _ chronic 

value

>10

algal _ chronic 

value

7.7 ACR 2.6

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SAR-nearest analog method for 

 MW 323; solid (P) with 

mp = unk °C (P); S > 450 g/L at 20 C (M); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and nominal concentrations; DWhardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DWTOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

770

SARs
SAR Class

Ecotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,980                   7,582
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,964                   2,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (917)                 (1,248)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,591                   9,311
<PP&E>                                           2,611                   2,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,996)                 (1,902)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,206                  10,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,109                   6,187
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           121                     118
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,976                   3,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,206                  10,010
<SALES>                                          3,444                   4,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,444                   4,946
<CGS>                                            2,777                   1,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,777                   1,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,574                   3,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (73)                   (112)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,834)                   (194)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,834)                   (194)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)                  (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### MEDFORD v. STATE.

No. 20331.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 29, 1939.

Robert Allen, of Henderson, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s -Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of cattle theft, and was by the jury awarded two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception. The indictment and all matters of procedure appearing to be in proper form, the judgment is affirmed.