alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by

assignment. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002). 

NO. 07-02-0267-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JANUARY 8, 2003

______________________________

JOSE DEMETRO ARAUSA JR., APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A14185-0109; HONORABLE JACK R. MILLER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ.1

Upon his plea of guilty, appellant Jose Demetro Arausa Jr. was convicted of the

offense of aggravated robbery and assessed a seven-year probated penal sentence and
2

a fine of $1,000, with 180 days of the sentence to be served in the Hale County Jail.

Appellant gave timely notice of appeal from the conviction.

However, other than the preparation and filing of a clerk’s and reporter’s record, no

further action was taken towards pursuing the appeal. That state of affairs led us to abate

and remand the case to the trial court for the purpose of determining why the appeal had

not been properly pursued and if appellant still desired to appeal his conviction.

In compliance with this court’s direction, on December 19, 2002, the trial court held

a hearing to determine those matters. Appellant was present at the hearing. At the

completion of the hearing, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law in

which it found that although appellant was indigent, he did not desire the appointment of

an attorney or to prosecute an appeal in this case and he wished the appeal to be

dismissed. The trial court also found that it had not granted appellant permission to appeal

his conviction after his guilty plea.

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Because the appeal is dismissed as

a result of appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate

will issue forthwith.

John T. Boyd

Senior Justice

Do not publish.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3601 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

7715 Post Road, North Kingstown, Rhode Island, as the ‘‘Melvoid J. 

Benson Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 

Mr. LANGEVIN (for himself and Mr. CICILLINE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 7715 Post Road, North Kingstown, Rhode 

Island, as the ‘‘Melvoid J. Benson Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MELVOID J. BENSON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 7715 Post Road, North 

6 Kingstown, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Melvoid J. Benson Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3601 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Melvoid J. Benson 

3 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

*No.*20177.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1939.

Jack Acrey, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 12 years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The indictment is sufficient to charge the offense and all procedural matters appear to be in due order.

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.
#### FANNIN v. STATE.

No. 17206.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 2, 1935.

Oscar Callaway, of Comanche, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of kidnapping, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court 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.
SHARE

# Reimagining the potential of Earth observations for ecosystem service assessments...

by Carlos Ramirez-reyes,Kate A. Brauman,Rebecca Chaplin-kramer,Nagendra Singh,T. Maxwell Wright

February, 2019

View DOI Listing

## Abstract

The benefits nature provides to people, called ecosystem services, are increasingly recognized and accounted for in assessments of infrastructure development, agricultural management, conservation prioritization, and sustainable sourcing. These assessments are often limited by data, however, a gap with tremendous potential to be filled through Earth observations (EO), which produce a variety of data across spatial and temporal extents and resolutions. Despite widespread recognition of this potential, in practice few ecosystem service studies use EO. Here, we identify challenges and opportunities to using EO in ecosystem service modeling and assessment. Some challenges are technical, related to data awareness, processing, and access. These challenges require systematic investment in model platforms and data management. Other challenges are more conceptual but still systemic; they are byproducts of the structure of existing ecosystem service models and addressing them requires scientific investment in solutions and tools applicable to a wide range of models and approaches. We also highlight new ways in which EO can be leveraged for ecosystem service assessments, identifying promising new areas of research. More widespread use of EO for ecosystem service assessment will only be achieved if all of these types of challenges are addressed. This will require non-traditional funding and partnering opportunities from private and public agencies to promote data exploration, sharing, and archiving. Investing in this integration will be reflected in better and more accurate ecosystem service assessments worldwide.

## Researchers

Nagendra  Singh

## Organizations

National Security Sciences Directorate

Geospatial Science and Human Security Division

Human Dynamics Section

Human Geography Group

Critical Infrastructure Resilience
#### WALKER v. STATE.

No. 18887.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 24, 1937.

*376Messer & Messer, of Temple, and Cecil R. Glass, of Marlin, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Theft of chickens is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears regular and properly presented.

No error having been perceived or pointed out, the judgment is affirmed.
| 1.   | DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTRA WORK |
|----------------|-------------------------------|

| 1.   | IR (90$), |
|----------------|-----------|

| 2.   | Assay (130$), |
|----------------|---------------|

| 3.   | Impurities (190$) |
|----------------|-------------------|

| 4.   | Water content (85$). |
|----------------|----------------------|

| 2.   | COST AND PAYMENTS |
|----------------|-------------------|

| 2.1   | The cost of the Services for the Extra Work detailed in section 1 is $495 USD. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.2   | The Client shall pay to [****] in United-States currency ($USD) upon the reception of the invoice. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| [****]                            |   | 7810962 Canada Inc.           |
|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
| Per:                              | /s/    |                               | Per: | /s/ Alain Guimond PhD |   |
| Name: [****]                 |   | Name: Alain Guimond PhD            |
| Title:   President |   | Title: Senior director of Research |
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)
 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of China BCT Pharmacy Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)           the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operation of the Company.
 
 Dated: March 9, 2011By:
/s/  Hui Tian TangHui Tian TangChief Executive Officer and Chairman
 
 Dated: March 9, 2011By:
/s/  Xiaoyan ZhangXiaoyan ZhangChief Financial Officer
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2013 - 0326 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM089AD

757 - 54 - 0035, R4 --- 6/18/09 757 - 54 - 0035, R5 --- 6/9/11 757 - 54 - 0003 --- 12 / 14 /8 4 757 - 54 - 0028 --- 3/31 /94

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
Exhibit 10.83


 


 


 


ADDENDUM
"C'.


TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


of


Daniel
N. Ford, Employee


 


THIS THIRD ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered
into this 1 day of March 2014, by and-between CUI Global, Inc., a Colorado corporation (hereinafter "CUI Global" or "Employer")
and Daniel N. Ford, hereinafter ("Employee"), collectively referred to herein as the "Parties" or in the singular
as “Party”.


 


WHEREAS, Employee and CUI Global entered into an Employment
Agreement dated May 15, 2008 that provides for all customary-matters inter alia compensation, bonus term, etc.


 


WHEREAS, Employee and CUI Global entered into an Addendum
"A" to Employment Agreement dated July 1, 2010 that provides for all customary matters inter alia compensation, bonus
term, etc.


 


WHEREAS, Employee and CUI Global entered into an Addendum
"B" to Employment


Agreement dated July 1, 2013 that provides for all
customary matters inter alia compensation, bonus, term, etc.


 


WHEREAS, Employee and CUI Global have agreed to modify
and revise certain terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement as modified and to retain, intact, all non-modified provisions
and covenants.


 


IT IS THEREFORE AGREED:


 


		1.	EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement is entered into and is effective on the date indicated above and. except as otherwise noted
herein, shall remain in effect until such time as it is terminated as provided for herein.



 


		2.	TERM OF EMPLOYMENT. The Term of Employment as set forth in previous addendum shall be extended to and through December 31,
2015.



 


		3.	SEVERANCE AGREEMENT. Should the company terminate said employment relationship, Employee shall be entitled to an eighteen
(18) month severance package and, in addition, all then outstanding stock options shall be accelerated and all options shall
immediately vest to Employee.



 


		4.	COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT. Effective January 1, 2014 and each ensuing January 1 during the Term of Employment, Employee shall
receive a four percent (4%) cost-of-living adjustment to his base salary.



 


		5.	APPLICABILITY. This Addendum modifies only the specific terms set forth herein and only to the extent specifically set forth
herein and does not to in any way effect the force and effect of other provisions within the Employment Agreement.



 






    	 



    	 



    

 


This document consists of two pages including the signature
page


 


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED


 











	Employee	 	 	 
		 	 	 
	/s/ 	 4/2/2014	 	 
	Daniel N. Ford	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	CUI Global, Inc.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ 	 	 	 
	William J. Clough, President/CEO	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	CUI Global, Inc.	 	 	 
	Compensation Committee	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ 	 3/19/2014		 	 
	 	Corey A. Lambrecht
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 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Aging Primate.                    

*Date:*                         November 18, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20814, (301) 827-3101,                         *dario.dieguez@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 30, 2024. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-22876 Filed 10-2-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit (10)(d)(i)



CERTIFICATE



AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE OF THE POTLATCH CORPORATION

SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT PLAN (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1989)



Whereas this Corporation, by resolution adopted by its Board of Directors effective May 5, 1989, authorized the Vice President-Employee Relations of this
Corporation to adopt non-substantive changes to benefit plans established and maintained by this Corporation if those changes do not have a material financial impact on such plans or the Corporation; and



Whereas it is deemed necessary and desirable to amend the Potlatch Corporation
Supplemental Benefit Plan (the Plan) to make certain non-substantive changes.



Now, Therefore, be it



Resolved that effective as
of January 1, 1998, Section 4(c) of the Potlatch Corporation Salaried Employees Supplemental Benefit Plan shall be amended to delete the last sentence thereof and to replace it in its entirety by the following:



If the vested amount credited to a Participants Savings Plan
Supplemental Benefit account, which is established after December 31, 1996, is less than $1,000 on the third anniversary of the establishment of such account, such benefit will be paid to the Participant in a single lump sum as soon as practicable
after the third anniversary of the establishment of such account.



| |  |                         |  |                      |  |     |                                   |                          
| |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | --- | --------------------------------- | -------------------------
| |  |                         |  | POTLATCH CORPORATION
| |  |                         |  |                     
| |  | September 15, 1998 Date |  |                      |  | By: |                                   | /s/    BARBARA M. FAILING
| |  |                         |  |                      |  |     |                                  
| |  |                         |  |                      |  |     | Vice President-Employee Relations
#                                                     Mohanad Mubashar Bushra  Abdullah                                            

### 

## Contact

abdullahm@ornl.gov
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 8432 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 100

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 6 $ 510.00 $0 $ 510.00 

### 92 $ 46,920.00

$ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 46,920



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs :

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Repair &

Replacement 6.0 $ 510.00 $9,500 $ 10,010.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also b e used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include sp ecific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3627 

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to exclude from eligibility for the generalized 

system of preferences any country that fails to effectively enforce its 

environmental laws or meet its international environmental obligations, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 

Mr. DOGGETT (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. 

LEWIS, Mr. NEAL, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. 

LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. KIND, Mr. PASCRELL, 

Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ

of California, and Ms. BASS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to exclude from eligibility 

for the generalized system of preferences any country 

that fails to effectively enforce its environmental laws 

or meet its international environmental obligations, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Earth Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3627 IH

1 SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND 

2 REGULATIONS. 

3 Section 502(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

4 U.S.C. 2462(b)(2)) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the fol6 lowing new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(I) Such country fails to effectively en8 force its environmental laws, regulations, or 

9 other measures, or to fulfill its international en10 vironmental obligations, including as such obli11 gations relate to public health.’’; and 

12 (2) in the matter following subparagraph (I) 

13 (as added by paragraph (1))— 

14 (A) by striking ‘‘and (H)’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘(H)’’; and 

16 (B) by striking ‘‘shall not prevent’’ and in17 serting ‘‘, and (I) shall not prevent’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS