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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60636

Summary Calendar

GEORGE BOUTROS ATA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H HOLDER, JR, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A36 029 397

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Boutros Ata petitions this court for review of the decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal and affirming the

immigration judge’s order that Ata is removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(a)(3) because he committed an aggravated felony.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 29, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60636

2

Ata specifically contends that the BIA improperly characterized his 2007

Texas conviction for marijuana possession as an aggravated felony punishable

under the Controlled Substances Act, particularly 21 U.S.C. § 844(a), because

he was neither prosecuted nor convicted under a relevant federal or state

recidivist offender statute; that the BIA should not have followed the

hypothetical approach used by this court in United States v. Sanchez-Villalobos,

412 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2005) because Sanchez-Villalobos contravenes prior

precedent in the immigration context; and that the rule of lenity should be

applied to resolve any lingering ambiguities in the statutory language. Ata’s

arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570

F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3058 (2009) (No. 09-

60).

Ata does not challenge the BIA’s determinations regarding his applications

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture. Any such challenges are abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,

324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, Ata’s petition for review is DENIED.
356P16

#### Virginia Radcliffe v. Avenel Homeowners Association, Inc., Carmelo (Tony) Buccafurri, Stephen Murray, Thomas Dinero, David Hull, Richard Progelhof, and Ron Zanzarella

1. Pit’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA (COA15-884)

2. Pit’s Motion to Treat Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*as a PDR

3. Defs’ Joint Response to Pit’s Motion to Treat Petition for *Certiorari*as Motion for Discretionary Review and Defs’ Motion in the Alternative to File Supplemental Response to Pit’s Petition

1. Denied

2. Allowed

3. Denied
#### COM. v. JOHNSON, A.

2092 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/01/2017

CP-40-CR-0002713-2011, (Luzerne)

Vacated/Remanded
No. 12-6510.

#### Riggins *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1072 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1072

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the ``Spencer Byrd 
                       Powers, Jr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2011

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi 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 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the ``Spencer Byrd 
                       Powers, Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPENCER BYRD POWERS, JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Spencer 
Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Schedule of Parties to Severance Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.14.1 

LIST OF EMPLOYEES PARTY TO EMPLOYMENT SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 Each of the individuals identified below is party to an employment severance agreement with TranS1 Inc. in the form included as Exhibit 10.14 to TranS1’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011: 
 Ken Reali 
 Joseph Slattery 
 Stephen Ainsworth 

Rick Feiler 

Dwayne Montgomery 

Mukesh Ramchandani
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Otay Mesa, CA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Mexico  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Otay Mesa, CA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Mexico  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | NA     | NA    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 26     | 63     | 84     | 88     | 116    | 89     | 99     | 71     | 53     | 84    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 208    | 236    | 119    | 35     | 88     | 88     | 65     | 69     | 5      | 24    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 17     | 6      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

William R. Hoy, :

Appellant :

: No. 1005 C.D. 2015

v. :

: Borough of Cochranton :

AMENDING ORDER

AND NOW, this 6 th day of January, 2017 , the first two sentences of

the first full paragraph on page 20 in the above

- matter, filed December 21 , 2016, is

amended to reflect the following correction :

Moreover, the evidence of record supports the reasons

given by the Township [Borough] for choosing Beachy

as uniquely qualified for the position and at least as

qualified as Hoy in this regard. The Township

[Borough] considered that Beachy had worked for the

Borough’s police department as a Sergeant, temporarily

served as its Ch ief of Police, had recommendations from

a number of residents, acquired budget experience and

experience with enforcement of local ordinances in the

Township [Borough] , was mentored by the Chief of

Police and had his recommendation.

______________ __________________ PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
#### State v. Storer

107,964

08/29/13

Denied. ,

Unpublished
#### IN RE: Ali Zito SHIELDS

NO. 2017-OB-1916

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

01/09/2018

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT

PER CURIAM

| t This proceeding arises out of an application for reinstatement filed by petitioner, Ali Zito Shields, an attorney currently suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner instructed, a client to sign pe-. titioner’s name on the attorney and notary lines of pleadings to be filed with a court, failed to return a client’s file, failed to provide two clients with accountings, failed *550to refund unearned fees to two clients, and failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) in an investigation. For this misconduct, we suspended petitioner from the practice of law for one year and one day and ordered her to “refund in full the legal fees paid by” the two clients. *In re: Shields,*14-2473 (La. 2/27/15), 161 So.3d 614.

Petitioner subsequently filed an application for reinstatement with the disciplinary board, alleging she has complied with the reinstatement criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). Included with petitioner’s application were documents indicating that she refunded in full the legal fees paid by the two clients who were the subjects of her disciplinary proceeding. The ODC filed a notice concurring in petitioner’s reinstatement. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the disciplinary board’s adjudicative committee chair, who approved petitioner’s petition for reinstatement and recommended the petition be granted.

IgAfter considering .the record in its entirety, we will adopt the adjudicative committee chair’s recommendation and reinstate petitioner to the practice of law.

DECREE

Upon review of the recommendation of the disciplinary board’s adjudicative committee chair, and considering the record, it is ordered that Ali Zito Shields, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25247, be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against petitioner.
# C_2019259EN.01002501.xml

| 2.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/25

---

Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

(2019/C 259/03)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299 (2), and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) 2016/44, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 8 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 15 May 2020, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C. |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| Belgique/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C.

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

Belgique/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 17(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and Article 21(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44, of the list of designated persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.

(2)  OJ L 204, 2.8.2019, p. 44.

(3)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 204, 2.8.2019, p. 1.

---
Opinion issued June 25 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 24
- 00086
- CR

——————————— IN RE WESLEY LEE BOWERS , Relat or

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator John Wesley Bowers, who is on probation from a conviction for driving while intoxicated, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order denying Bowers’ petition for an occupational driver’s license2

while his license is suspended. 1 The State filed a response and Bowers filed a reply. We deny the petition. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are
dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas

- Molloy, and Farri s. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).

1 The underlying case is In re Wesley Lee Bowers , cause number 2447624

- R , pending in the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No , 7 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Andrew A. Wright presiding.
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|U.S. Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|U.S. Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 10.9  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 13.4   | 14.9   | 16.8   | 16.1   | 20.7   | 23.3   | 22.4   | 29.2   | 33.0   | 33.9  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 36.1   | 34.0   | 36.4   | 34.9   | 35.9   | 35.0   | 36.3   | 37.6   | 38.1   | 40.8  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 42.5   | 44.2   | 46.8   | 46.1   | 46.2   | 46.6   | 47.4   | 46.7   | 46.0   | 46.0  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 46.7   | 46.1   | 45.2   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### COM. v. RICE, C.

1420 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/31/2017

CP-61-CR-0000022-2014

CP-61-CR-0000407-2014

(Venango)

Affirmed
November 3, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

VINCENT THOMAS, Appellant

NO. 14-10-00954-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
J

~~ (ED STqT

~

s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

'~11~~ ► ¢

0 PROj

~ G( 

### MAR 3 1 2009

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
David Moody, Ph.D. Manager, Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090
Dear Dr. Moody:

On October 2, 2008, the Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commenting on our July 9, 2008 waste characterization letter, as well as seeking clarification of when DOE/CBFO must request EPA concurrence to changes to the DOE's Transuranic (TRU) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).

I wa.nt to clarify that an EPA concurrence of WAC revisions is necessary when the WAC revisions affect the system of controls required at 40 CFR 194.24 that prescribe regulatory limits for TRU waste disposed of at the WIPP. The EPA concurrence is not necessary if the changes: 1) are solely administrative, 2) are as a result of any changes reflecting revisions to the New Mexico-issued hazardous waste permit, 3) address revisions to the Federal regulation for TRU waste packaging for shipment to WIPP, and/or 4) made to address statutory revisions. For example, the latest WAC version dated January 14, 2009, was necessary to remove the requirement contained in the energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2008 for the WIPP (DOE/WIPP-02-3122, Revision 6.3). However, this WAC revision does not require EPA concurrence since it does not affect the system of controls at 40 CFR 194.24.
In the October 2, 20081etter, you took issue with our position that the WAC does not emphasize the need for CH TRU waste sites to supply complete and accurate identification of all waste material parameters (WMPs). In the response you quoted from the WAC that all items are to be identified. We do not disagree with the language from the WAC that you quoted, and that is not the issue we have. Our request, however, was that additional language be added to the WAC to emphasize the existing non-destructive examination (NDE) language. However, we realize that there may be additional ways to reinforce the goal of achieving the best identification and estimates of WMPs as possible. We plan to discuss this issue at the upcoming Apri121-22, 2009, EPA and CBFO National TRU Program Staff Meeting in Carlsbad.

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclabie • Printed with Vegetabie Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperIf you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Ed Feltcorn at

(202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462.



### Sincerely,



# ~ 

# ._-----

~ Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management & Regulations

cc: Electronic Distribution Alton Harris, DOE EM Vernon Daub, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO Casey Gadbury, CBFO Russ Patterson, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Steve Zappe, NMED David Haar, WTS/CCP David Ploetz, WTS/CCP Allison Pangle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC
No. 12-6666.

#### Kwasnik *v.*Maine.

Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certio-rari denied.