alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40669 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Javier Mena Martinez,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:19

- CR

- 1675

- 1

Before **Davis, Stewart,** and **Dennis,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Javier Mena Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction of transporting an illegal alien. He argues that the district court impermissibly delegated the decision to place him in an inpatient or outpatient drug treatment program to the probation officer.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not prec edent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 24, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40669 Document: 00515913659 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021No. 20

- 40669

2 Mena Martinez concedes plain error review applies, because he did not raise his objection at sentencing when he had an opportunity to do so. See United States v. Diggles , 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir.), (en banc), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 825 (2020). Under the plain error standard, Mena Martinez must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.
See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009 ).
“The imposition of a sentence, including the terms and conditions of supervised release, is a core judicial function that cannot be delegated.”
United States v. Franklin , 838 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It is not permissible for a district court to delegate the decisio n of “whether a defendant will participate in a treatment program,” but “a district court may properly delegate to a probation officer decisions as to the details of a condition of supervised
release.” Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant , 937 F.3d 392, 40 0 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks, emphasis, and citations omitted).
Recently, t his court simultaneously issued United States v. Martinez , 987 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2021) , and United States v. Medel

- Guadalupe , 987 F.3d 424 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 20

- 7483, 2021 WL 1520967 (U.S. April 19, 2021) , which addressed the same wording of imposed special conditions of supervised release that Mena Martinez challenges here. In light of these decisions, we conclude that the district court impermissibly delegated authority to determine whether Mena Martinez should participate in inpatient or outpatient treatment and that this constitutes reversible plain

error. S ee Martinez , 987 F.3d at 436 ; U nited States v. Barber , 865 F.3d 837,

8 40 (5th Cir. 2017)

. Accordingly, the substance abuse treatment condition is **VACATED**
and the matter is **REMANDED** to the district court. Case: 20-40669 Document: 00515913659 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
Rialto CAPTIAL **2015 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of December 1, 2012 by and among UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. as Operating Advisor, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian relating to the UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C4,  Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-C4  **(UBS-Barclays 2012-C4)**The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the "Special Servicer") herein certifies to the following: 1.All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer. 2.A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision. 3.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein. Certified by:  /s/ Adam Singer       Date:  March 1, 2016        Adam Singer, Managing Director ************
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF


CORPORATE EQUITY INVESTMENTS, INC.


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capital Equity Finance, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chad B. Beemer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on 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.





/S/ Chad B. Beemer


Chad B. Beemer


Chief Financial Officer


August 18, 2009





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM

Date/ Time: July 15, 2010 / 11 a.m. - 12 p.m. 

Subject: Aldicarb Meeting Minutes. OPP Meets with Bayer Crop-Science to Discuss 

 Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Revised Aggregate Dietary Exposure 

 and Risk Assessment for Aldicarb 

From: K. Avivah Jakob, Chemical Review Manager 

 Re-evaluation Managment and Implimentation Branch IV 

 Pestcide Re-evaulation Division (7508P) 

Partcipants: Anne Overstreet (EPA), K. Avivah Jakob (EPA), Christine Olinger (EPA), 

 Michael Metzger (EPA), Linda Taylor (EPA), Elissa Reaves (EPA); Larry Hodges 

 (Bayer Crop-Science); Ian Kelly (Bayer Crop-Science); Russel Jones (Bayer Crop- 

 Science) 

Meeting Minutes: 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) requested a 

meeting with Bayer Crop-Science (Bayer) to discuss preliminary results from EPA’s revised 

acute probabilistic aggregate dietary (food and drinking water) exposure and risk assessment for 

aldicarb. The revised 2010 risk assessment is based on comparative cholinesterase assay (CCA) 

and new food and residue data which were recently submitted to the Agency. EPA’s revised 

dietary exposure and risk assessment indicates that aldicarb no longer meets the Agency’s 

rigorous food safety standards and may pose unacceptable dietary risks, especially to infants and 

young children. 

EPA met with Bayer Crop-Science, the technical registrant of aldicarb, on July 15, 2010 and 

provided an overview of EPA’s revised dietary risk assessment. On July 13, 2010 EPA sent the 

following two documents to Bayer via e-mail: a summary of the revised aldicarb dietary risk 

assessment, dated July 2010 and the Aldicarb: Review of Comparative Cholinesterase Assays 

(Dose-Response, Time Course, Comparative Dose, and Range-finding Studies), dated July 13, 

2010. During the meeting EPA provided signed copies of the following supporting science 

documents: Aldicarb. FQPA Safety Factor Revision, dated July 13, 2010; Recovery Half-Lives 

for RBC and Brain Acetylcholinesterase in Adult and Pup Rats Exposed to Aldicarb, dated July 

14, 2010; and Statistical Review of Sielken, R. (2010) Benchmark Doses for Brain and RBS 

Acetylcholinesterase in Adult and Pups Exposed to Aldicarb, dated July 1, 2010. During the 

meeting, EPA and the registrant discussed the scientific approaches used by the Agency in its 

most recent exposure and risk assessment. Also, EPA and Bayer briefly discussed possible 

mitigation approaches for aldicarb based upon the revised dietary risk assessment. OPP will 

continue discussions with the registrant to address these risks of concern.
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-31-2024]

On June 12, 2024, The Piedmont Triad Partnership, grantee of FTZ 230, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Patheon Softgels, within Subzone 230C, in High Point, North Carolina.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (89 FR 51873, June 20, 2024). On October 10, 2024, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14.                

Dated: October 10, 2024.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-23819 Filed 10-15-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
1 

### Hutson, Nick

From: CurryBrown, Amanda Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:58 AM To: Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov Cc: Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov; Hutson, Nick; Fruh, Stev e; Culligan, Kevin; Weatherhead, Darryl Subject: Updated Version of 111(b) RIA and Response to Inter agency Comments - 7/30 Attachments: EO 12866_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 RIA Final_073020 15.docx; EO 12866_111(b) NewMods 2060-AQ91 RIA Final_07302015_CLEAN.docx; SummaryofinteragencycommentsunderEO 12866_111(b) Ne w-Mods 2060-AQ91 RIA Final_ 7282105.docx



### Hi Nathan,

See attached for a revised version of the RIA in cl ean and RLSO + responses to the last set of Interag ency comments. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Amanda

Amanda Curry Brown Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standar ds
919.541.3808 CurryBrown.Amanda@epa.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2951 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2951

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 17, 2000

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to 
 investigate opportunities to better manage the water resources in the 
          Salmon Creek watershed of the upper Columbia River.

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

SECTION 1. SALMON CREEK WATERSHED, WASHINGTON, WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior may conduct a study 
to investigate the opportunities to better manage the water resources 
in the Salmon Creek Watershed, a tributary to the Upper Columbia River 
system, Okanagoan County, Washington, so as to restore and enhance 
fishery resources (especially the endangered Upper Columbia Spring 
Chinook and Steelhead), while maintaining or improving the availability 
of water supplies for irrigation practices vital to the economic well-
being of the county.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the study under subsection (a) shall 
be to derive the benefits of and further the objectives of the 
comprehensive, independent study commissioned by the Confederated 
Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Okanagoan Irrigation 
District, which provides a credible basis for pursuing a course of 
action to simultaneously achieve fish restoration and improved 
irrigation conservation and efficiency.
    (c) Cost Share.--The Federal Government's cost share for the 
feasibility study shall not exceed 50 percent.

            Passed the Senate October 13 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DEBRA ANN CHRISTIAN, as Personal

Representative of the ESTATE OF

CLIFFORD CHRISTIAN,

 Appellant / Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY

COMPANY,

 Appellee / Defendant.

Cause No.: DA-22-0154

Judge:

ORDER

Appellant Debra Ann Christian, as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Clifford Christian, having filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension within which

to file Appellant’s Opening Brief, and good cause appearing therefor;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s

Opening Brief is due July 29, 2022.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 6 2022

07/06/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0154
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GODERICKVILLADELGADO, Petitioner,
vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent. No. 85273 

# FILE OCT 06 2022 ELIZABETHA. BROWN CLERK 1 111F REME COURT BY • DEPUTrcLERK ORDERDENYING PETITION
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challengingthe parole board's decision to deny parole.

Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy, and petitioners bear the burden to show that such relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). In the instant matter, petitioner hasnot demonstrated that extraordinaryreliefis warranted, as the petition is not supported by any relevant documentation and lacks critical information about petitioner's conviction, sentence, as well as the parole board proceeding and determination. NRAP 21(a)(4) (stating that it is the petitioner's obligation to provide an appendix that includes all records that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

" 47A 02

### .2 -3)5S5-J. , C.J. Parrhguirre Mostimportantly, thepetition doesnot includetheparoleboard determination that petitioner challenges. NRAP 21(a)(4). Without this crucial information, we cannot evaluate the petition.1 Accordingly, we

ORDERthe petition DENIED.

Hardesty
Stiglich

# 414(.4-.0 J.

cc: Goderick Villadelgado Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA ••)) 7A 'Petitioner has filed an erratum to the petition, which we have

considered together with the petition.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2811

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 25, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

AN ACT

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act to make communities with high levels of out-migration or population loss eligible for community facilities

grants.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2811 RFH

1 SECTION 1. COMMUNITY FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM FOR

2 RURAL COMMUNITIES WITH HIGH LEVELS OF

3 OUT-MIGRATION OR LOSS OF POPULATION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 306(a) of the Consoli5 dated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.

6 1926(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(20) COMMUNITY FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM

8 FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES WITH HIGH LEVELS OF

9 OUT-MIGRATION OR LOSS OF POPULATION.—

10 ‘‘(A) GRANT AUTHORITY.—The Secretary

11 may make grants to associations, units of gen12 eral local government, nonprofit corporations,

13 and Indian tribes (as defined in section 4 of the

14 Indian Self-Determination and Education As15 sistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)) in a State to

16 provide the Federal share of the cost of devel17 oping specific essential community facilities in

18 any geographic area—

19 ‘‘(i) that is represented by—

20 ‘‘(I) any political subdivision of a

21 State;

22 ‘‘(II) an Indian tribe on a Fed23 eral or State reservation; or

24 ‘‘(III) other federally recognized

25 Indian tribal group;
3

S 2811 RFH

1 ‘‘(ii) that is located in a rural area (as

2 defined in section 381A);

3 ‘‘(iii) with respect to which, during

4 the most recent 5-year period, the net out5 migration of inhabitants, or other popu6 lation loss, from the area equals or exceeds

7 5 percent of the population of the area;

8 and

9 ‘‘(iv) that has a median household in10 come that is less than the nonmetropolitan

11 median household income of the United

12 States.

13 ‘‘(B) FEDERAL SHARE.—Paragraph

14 (19)(B) shall apply to a grant made under this

15 paragraph.

16 ‘‘(C) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA17 TIONS.—There are authorized to be appro18 priated to carry out this paragraph

19 $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and such

20 sums as are necessary for each subsequent fis21 cal year, of which not more than 5 percent of

22 the amount made available for a fiscal year

23 shall be available for community planning and

24 implementation.’’.
4

S 2811 RFH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

2 381E(d)(1)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural De3 velopment Act (7 U.S.C. 2009d(d)(1)(B)) is amended by

4 striking ‘‘section 306(a)(19)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph

5 (19) or (20) of section 306(a)’’.

Passed the Senate October 24 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
#### Wegner, Respondent, v. Grant and another, Appellants.

*November 7*

December *2, 1958.*

*Harold M. Dakin*of Watertown, for the appellants.

*Eldred Dede*of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal was argued before this court on November 7, 1958. It appears from the record that said appeal was taken from an order of the circuit court for Waukesha county-entered January 3, 1958, which order denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and that on the same day default judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of $7,204.19 together with costs and disbursements. No appeal has been taken from said judgment although notice of the entry thereof was served upon the defendant Agnes Grant on January 4, 1958, and upon the defendant Roy Grant, Jr., on January 6, 1958, by means of substituted service upon his wife, Agnes Grant.

Upon the authority of *Miller v. Associated Contractors*(1958), 3 Wis. (2d) 331, 88 N. W. (2d) 672, we hold the present appeal from said order to be moot. This is because *618the aforesaid judgment is *res ad judicata*as to any issue which might be raised in the appeal from the order denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed upon its merits without costs.

Beown, J., took no part.
Exhibit 99.1

Great Lakes REIT
823 Commerce Drive, Suite 300
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523

March 24,
2003

Securities
and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549



Ladies
and Gentlemen:

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Form 10-K of
Great Lakes REIT (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers
of the Company certifies, that, to such officer's knowledge:



| |  |                   |                        
| |  | ----------------- | -----------------------
| |  |                   |                        
| |  | /s/RICHARD A. MAY
| |  | Name:             | Richard A. May         
| |  | Title:            | Chief Executive Officer
| |  |                   |                        
| |  |                   |                        
| |  | /s/JAMES HICKS   
| |  | Name:             | James Hicks            
| |  | Title:            | Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
NO. 07-08-0262-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MAY 12, 2009

______________________________

LLANO ROYALTY, LTD., APPELLANT

V.

CHARLIE CUMMINGS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 94,302-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case involves a dispute over the status of an oil and gas lease. The trial court

entered a judgment in favor of Appellee, Charlie Cummings, that the lease had terminated

and also awarded attorney’s fees. Appellant, Llano Royalty, Ltd., perfected this appeal.

Prior to submission of the merits of the appeal Llano Royalty, Ltd. and Charlie Cummings

filed a Joint Motion to Remand. By the motion, the parties represent they have reached
2

an agreement to settle and compromise their differences. They request this Court set

aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial

court for rendition of judgment in accordance with their agreement.

To accord the trial court with jurisdiction to accomplish the relief requested by the

parties and effectuate the settlement agreement, we grant the motion and, without passing

on the merits of the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for

further proceedings. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). See also Sutton v. Horseshoe

Hills, Ltd., 278 S.W.3d 923 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist. 2009, no pet.); Vigil v. Montero,

225 S.W.3d 271 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2006, no pet.). Pursuant to the motion, costs are

taxed against the party by whom incurred. Having set aside the judgment at the request

of the parties, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue

forthwith.

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice