alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 07

- 00681

- CR
Lawrence GARZA , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2003

- CR

- 1569 Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr. , Jud ge Presiding Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 31, 2008
DISPOSITION
AFFIRMED On July 28, 2003, Appellant Lawrence Garza enter ed into a plea agreement on the enhanced state jail felony of theft. The trial court elected not to follow the State’s recommendation and assessed punishment at five years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justi ce and suspended and probated the sentence for a04

- 07

- 00681

- CR

- 2

- period of five years. Because he did not follow the plea agreement, Garza was given the option to withdraw his plea. He chose not to do so and instead to accept the punishment assessed by the trial court. On September 11, 2007, Appellant Lawrence Garza entered a plea of true to the State’s motion to revoke his community supervision. The trial court assessed punishment at four years confinement in accordance with the State’s recommendation.
Garza’s court

- a ppointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Garza with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85

- 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Jimenez did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in And ers brief or pro se response but should only determine if the appeal is frivolous). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols , 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

Rebecca Simmons , Justice Do not publish
No. 12-819.

#### Jimenez *v.*Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7470.

#### Becker *v.*Knipp, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-732.

#### Ramon Ochoa *v.*Rubin, aka Rubin Ochoa.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddy Momplaisir, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 605]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered January 10, 2002, as amended March 28, 2002, convicting defendant of violation of probation, and revoking his prior sentence of probation and resentencing him to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant had been sentenced to five years probation in 1997 upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree. Upon his violation of probation, he was resentenced on January 10, 2002 to a term of 2 to 6 years. It is undisputed that this sentence was illegal because a minimum term of one half the maximum was required. Accordingly, on March 28, 2002, the court lawfully resentenced defendant to a term of 3 to 6 years *(see People v DeValle,*94 NY2d 870 [2000]). We reject defendant’s argument that, given the prior sentence of 2 to 6 years, he was constitutionally entitled to a sentence no greater than 2 to 4 years *(People v Whiffled,*276 AD2d 365 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 740 [2001]; *Williams v Travis,*143 F3d 98 [1998]). We also perceive no basis for reducing the sentence as a matter of discretion. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Vessel to Philippines (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Vessel to Philippines (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct   | Nov   | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ----- | ---
|2023                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 3,378 | 3,445 | 0  
|2024                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 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
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) OF THE**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934**

 

I, George C. Moore, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maytag Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 14, 2003
Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3C0544DO... 8/26/2011
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14072]



[[Page 29201]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-52-004]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Refund 
Report

May 21, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 18, 1998, William Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams), tendered for filing its refund report of Kansas ad 
valorem taxes.
    Williams states that this filing is being made in compliance with 
Commission order issued September 10, 1997 in Docket Nos. RP97-369-000, 
et al. The September 10 order requires first sellers to make refunds 
for the period October 3, 1983 through June 28, 1988. The Commission 
also directed that pipelines file a report concerning their activities 
to collect and flow through refunds of the taxes at issue.
    Williams states that a copy of its filing was served on all of 
Williams' jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before May 28, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14072 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 12-867.

#### Potugari *v.*Alabama.

Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.
EX-31 MINERAL MOUNTAIN MINING & MILLING COMPANY
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Delaine H. Gruber. certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10QSB of Mineral
Mountain Mining and Milling Company.

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;

3.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and
15d-15e)for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the small business
issuer is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my
conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 13, 2004
/s/ Delaine H. Gruber
-----------------------------------
Delaine H. Gruber, President and Director
No. 12-391.

#### Mendoza *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 7.03   | 5.33  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.17   | 7.34   | 12.48  | 7.58   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1483 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1483

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on N-Amidino-3,5-diamino-6-
         chloropyrazinecarboxamide monohydrochloride dihydrate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 22 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

 Mr. Lautenberg (for himself and Mr. Bradley) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on N-Amidino-3,5-diamino-6-
         chloropyrazinecarboxamide monohydrochloride dihydrate.

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

SECTION 1. AMILORIDE HYDROCHLORIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.30.88 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to amiloride hydrochloride) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting ``12/31/95''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by this Act applies 
        with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse 
        for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
            (2) Reliquidation.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
        Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon proper 
        request filed with the appropriate customs officer on or before 
        the 90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any 
        entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of an 
        article described in subheading 9902.30.88 of the Harmonized 
        Tariff Schedule of the United States that was made--
                    (A) after December 31, 1992, and
                    (B) before the date which is 15 days after the date 
                of the enactment of this Act,
        shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry 
        occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.15

2006 Bonus Plan

          The 2006 Bonus Plan is a cash bonus plan for the 2006 fiscal year, and is based upon both qualitative and quantitative goals.  Bonuses to executive officers will be based upon the achievement of specified targets relating to net income/net loss, bookings, revenues and net cash flow. Achievement of the target objectives for any one of the four components will, subject to the condition noted below and to approval by the independent members of the Board of Directors, result in payment of 25% of the target bonus.  Executive officers will not be eligible to receive the portions of bonuses relating to the net income/net loss and net cash flow components unless the Company meets or exceeds the respective target performance goals, and will not be eligible to receive any bonuses if the Company does not meet or exceed the target performance goals for the net income/net loss component.  2006 target
bonuses for the Company’s executive officers are as follows:  $110,000 for James T. Healy, President and Chief Executive Officer, $55,000 for Bruce M. Jaffe, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer and $25,000 for Ronald H. Mabry, Vice President of Field Operations and Applications Engineering.
From: David Ozonoff [dozonoff@bu.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:51 PM

To: Henshaw, Russell

Subject: Reconsideration of CLL

Dear Dr. Henshaw

This is in response to your query concerning my views on compensating CLL as a radiation related

disease now being considered by the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support. This as been an

area of interest of mine and I welcome the opportunity to present my views.

I have examined the Reconsideration document you provided me (as well as a number of other pertinent

documents) and I find its argument for including CLL as compensable well founded and well supported.

The arguments for continued exclusion are not only weak, but lacking in foundation.

Considering that all blood cells come from a common progenitor stem cell it has always seemed

plausible to me that any cancer of the blood system could be radiation related. This is now generally

accepted as true for benzene, which also affects progenitor stem cells (see forthcoming article in

Science to this effect by Lan et al.) The specific cell type would depend on just where in the

differentiation series the alteration to a malignant phenotype occurred. It is well known that malignancies

can "change" their cell lineage during the course of the disease.

We tend to forget that the four "forms" of leukemia (ALL, AML, CML and CLL) are designations

made on clinical grounds and are related to prognosis and management rather than etiology. Indeed if

one wanted to employ cell surface markers, there could be hundreds or even thousands of "different"

types of leukemia. This would not make them different from the standpoint of etiology however. Thus

while the type of leukemia is very important if one wants to treat the disease it is incorrect to assume this

is related to etiology. Just as the difference between a fracture of the thigh bone and the wrist bone is

extremely important for treatment and management of a fracture, it says nothing about the etiology of

either.

In summary, my expert opinion supports including CLL as a radiogenic cancer and against the

continuing, and it seems to me, arbitrary practice of exclusion.

I hope you find this helpful.

Sincerely yours

dave ozonoff

-- 

David Ozonoff, MD, MPH
Professor of Environmental Health

Boston University School of Public Health

715 Albany Street

Boston, MA 02118

tel. (617) 638-4620/fax. (617) 638-4857

e-mail: dozonoff@bu.edu

web site: http://www.bu.edu/dbin/sph/departments/environmental_health/index.php