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

OEPUTYI ICLERT 

No. 84380 

FILE 

APR 2 8 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERIgFIJPREME COURT 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

OSCAR ART STANLEY, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK, 

Respondent, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS AND DENYING PETITION FOR A 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS/ PROHIBITION 

In this original pro se petition for a writ of 

mandamus/prohibition, petitioner seeks a writ directing the district court 

to resentence him under amendments to Nevada's habitual criminal 

statute. 

Appellant has filed a motion requesting the appointment of 

appellate counsel. Appellant is not entitled to appointed counsel at the 

state's expense in postconviction proceedings. See Brown v. McDaniel, 130 

Nev. 565, 570, 331 P.3d 867, 871 (2014); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 

U.S. 722, 755 (1991). Accordingly, the motion is denied. 

This court takes no action on appellant's motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis for this appeal. The filing fee has already been waived. 

We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter and, 

without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline 

to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.160; NRAP 

SUPREME COURT 21(b)(1); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I447A 
840, 841, 844 (2004) (providing that writ relief is proper only when there is 

no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the 

burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner contends 

that the district court erred in applying NRS 207.01.0 and seeks to have his 

conviction reversed and remanded to remove his habitual criminal 

sentencing enhancements. Having considered the petition, we are not 

persuaded that writ relief is warranted because petitioner has a plain, 

speedy, and adequate remedy available to him by way of an appeal from the 

district court's denial of such relief in the first instance. Petitioner exercised 

this plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appealing the district court's 

order denying his motion to modify sentence in docket no. 83420-COA. 

Accordingly, we, I 

ORDER the Petition DENIED. 

, C.J. 

Parraguirre 

 J. 

Hardesty Stiglich 

cc: Oscar Art Stanley 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'Accordingly we take no action as to petitioner's notice filed on April 

18, 2022. 

2
*February 4, 1930.*

#### Congdon, Respondent, vs. Digman, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Gilbert J. Davelaar,*attorney, and *J. G. Konop*and *W. 0. Meilahn,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Lockney & Lowry*of Waukesha.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__2012

________ - NM -

___ 0 77

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant ? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Dulmes, Administratrix, Respondent, vs. Ramaker and others, Defendants and Respondents, and Kumbier (Frank), Appellant.

For the appellant: *Ernest H. Pett*and *Sanborn, Blake & Aberg,*all of Madison.

For the respondent administratrix: *Herman C. Runge*of Sheboygan.

For the respondents Ramaker: *Werner & Clemens*and *Fulton H. Leberman,*all of Sheboygan, and *Stephens, Sletteland & Sutherland*and *Marvin P. Verhulst*of counsel, all of Madison.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
No. 90-271.

#### Aquilina *v.*Immigration and Naturalization Service.

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of Rosemarie Barone and Joseph W. Aquilina for leave to intervene denied. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Certified Public Accountants**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-50148) pertaining to the EquityIncentive Plan of SPEEDCOM Wireless Corporation and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-69564) and related Prospectus of SPEEDCOM Wireless Corporation for the registration of 18,013,762 shares of its common stock, of our report datedFebruary 2, 2004, except for Note 17, as to which the date is February 9, 2004, with respect to the financial statements of SPEEDCOM Wireless Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/    Aidman, Piser & Company,P.A. 

 

Tampa, Florida 

February 9, 2004
**Exhibit 10.41.5**

**AMENDMENT TO THE**

**CASH BALANCE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF**

**ASSOCIATED GROCERS, INC.**

Unified Grocers, Inc. (“Unified”), pursuant to its authority as successor sponsor of the Cash Balance Retirement Plan forEmployees of Associates Grocers, Inc. (the “Plan”), hereby amends the Plan, effective January 1, 2001, as set forth below. 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement to Transfer Plan Sponsorship, Associated Grocers, Inc. (“AG”) transferred sponsorship of thePlan to Unified and Unified assumed sole sponsorship of the Plan, effective September 30, 2007. Effective September 30, 2007, Unified continued as the sole sponsor of the Plan within the meaning of Section 3(16)(B) of ERISA; and

WHEREAS, immediately upon the transfer of sponsorship to Unified, Unified has sole authority to take actions under the Planthat AG had immediately prior to the transfer of sponsorship, including the authority to amend or terminate the Plan in accordance with its terms; and 

WHEREAS, Unified merged the Plan with and into the Unified Grocers, Inc. Cash Balance Plan, effective December 31, 2008; and

WHEREAS, Unified now desires to amend the Plan concerning the timing of the distribution of a Participant’s cash balancebenefit for periods prior to such merger. 

NOW, THEREFORE, Unified does hereby amend Section 3.4 of the Plan to read asfollows: 

3.4 Retirement Date

The Retirement Date for a Participant shall be one of the dates specified in Sections 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3 above, on which benefits are tocommence. The Retirement Date for a Participant who Terminates prior to retirement with a vested Accrued Benefit shall be Normal Retirement Date, unless such Participant qualifies for and elects to receive benefits at an Early Retirement Date.Despite the foregoing, effective as of January 1, 2001, with respect to the portion of a Participant’s Accrued Benefit derived from service on or after January 1, 2001, if any, the Retirement Date for a Participant who Terminatesprior to retirement with a vested Accrued Benefit shall be any date elected by such Participant to receive benefits after he or she Terminates. Such benefits may be paid in any of the forms provided under Section 5.1. 

Executed this 10th day of May, 2010.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             533
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            4035
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0 
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      73542 
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            4745
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              4676
<LOANS>                                         121338
<ALLOWANCE>                                        575
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  206023
<DEPOSITS>                                      131152
<SHORT-TERM>                                      1500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               4401
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                       68924
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  206023 
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   2364
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1183
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    53
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  3600
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1666
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1677  
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1922
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        5
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    571
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1413
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1413
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       884
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.00
<LOANS-NON>                                        654
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1492     
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   572
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  575
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            575
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors:
Profile Technologies, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-53575) on Form S-3 of Profile Technologies, Inc. of our report dated
September 14, 2001 relating to the balance sheet of Profile Technologies, Inc.
as of June 30, 2001, and the related statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended
June 30, 2001, which report appears in the June 30, 2001 annual report of
Form 10-KSB of Profile Technologies, Inc.

Our report dated September 14, 2001, contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has incurred net losses since inception and has
projected working capital requirements at June 30, 2001 that raise substantial
doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements
do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of the
uncertainty.

Seattle, Washington
September 28, 2001                      By: /s/ KPMG LLP
                                           ----------------------------
                                                KPMG LLP
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII
901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

September 23, 2011

Joseph J Scarpino

1332 South 26 Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68105

RE: SAID: 20155

1332 South 26 Street
Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

Dear Owner/Resident:

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels.

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 1332 South 26 Street. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument.

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside.

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization.If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency

Enclosures
Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045.Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment 

# 1 

# ll111111111111111111111111111111 20 1s 5

LEGEND: H 

### - N 

### - P 

### - 01 

### - 20155 

### I Samples Analvzed

-WID Number

Sample Number Lead Loading Structure/Feature Substrate Color Deteriorated (Window, sid~ng. porch, etc ) (Wood, concrete, etc.) Area
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

EUSEBIO JIMENEZ-GARCIA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-50317

D.C. No. 5:07-cr-00167-VAP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2010** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Eusebio Jimenez-Garcia appeals from the 84-month sentence imposed

following his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of

8 U.S.C. §1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but

remand to correct the judgment.

FILED

JAN 04 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-50317

Jimenez-Garcia contends that his sentence within the Guidelines range is

substantively unreasonable because, among other reasons, the district court focused

too heavily on his criminal history. The district court did not procedurally err. See

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, in

light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. 

See id. 

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062

(9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it

delete from the judgment the reference to section 1326(b)(2). See United States v.

Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to

delete the reference to section 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.
# C_2005139EN.01003602.xml

| 8.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3733 — DOW/DDE)

(2005/C 139/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 26 April 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3733. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3733. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
## NUMBER 13 - 2 0 - 00 319 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ EIGHT THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY AND 00/100 ($8,120.00) DOLLARS IN U.S. CURRENCY , Appellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

.

_ ___________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

_ ___________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina This cause is before the Court on appellee’s motion to dismiss

. The appellant ’ s brief in the above cause was originally due on January 4, 2021

. On January 11, 2021 and January 27, 2021, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief was past2

due. Subsequently, the Court granted appellant ’s request for an extension of time to file the brief. On April 7 , 20 21 , appellant appeared pro se and filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1. On April 4, 2021, t he Clerk of the Court s ent a ppellant notice of the defects and instructed
him to file an amended brief within ten days of the notice

. On May 7, 2021, the Clerk of the Court sent appellant a second defect notice and informed him that if the defects were not cured within ten days, the appeal shall be dismissed

. Appellant failed to file an amended brief , and the initial brief failed generally to comply with Rule s 9.4 (i)(3) , 9.5 ( a, e ), and 38.1( a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k ) , as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Furthermore, p ro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn , 573 S.W.2d 181, 184

– 85 (Tex. 1978). If a party files a brief that does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38 .9(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a) , where an appellant has failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Additionally, an appellate court may dismiss a cause on any party’s motion for want of prosecution or for failing to comply with the rule or notice from the clerk required a response or action. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3( b),(c)

.3

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss, strike appellant ’ s non conforming brief , and order the appeal dismissed for want of prosecutio n

. See T EX

. R.
A PP . P. 42.3(b)(c).

JAIME TIJERINA Justice

D elivered and filed on the 26th day of August , 202 1

.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 220 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 220

 To authorize the expansion of an existing hydroelectric project, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the expansion of an existing hydroelectric project, 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. TERROR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT UPPER HIDDEN BASIN 
              DIVERSION AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Terror lake hydroelectric project.--The term ``Terror 
        Lake Hydroelectric Project'' means the project identified in 
        section 1325 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
        Act (16 U.S.C. 3212), and which is Federal Energy Regulatory 
        Commission project number 2743.
            (2) Upper hidden basin diversion expansion.--The term 
        ``Upper Hidden Basin Diversion Expansion'' means the expansion 
        of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project as generally described 
        in Exhibit E to the Upper Hidden Basin Grant Application dated 
        July 2, 2014, and submitted to the Alaska Energy Authority 
        Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII by Kodiak Electric 
        Association, Inc.
    (b) Authorization.--The licensee for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric 
Project may occupy not more than 20 acres of Federal land to construct, 
operate, and maintain the Upper Hidden Basin Diversion Expansion 
without further authorization of the Secretary of the Interior or under 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et 
seq.).
    (c) Savings Clause.--The Upper Hidden Basin Diversion Expansion 
shall be subject to appropriate terms and conditions included in an 
amendment to a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission pursuant to the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), 
including section 4(e) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e)), following an 
environmental review by the Commission under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```