alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Price of Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Taiwan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Price of Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Taiwan (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | 5.90  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | W      | 6.50   | 11.50  | 5.84   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000319 11-AUG-2017 09:29 AM
2016-1741.

#### State v. Hardman.

Hamilton App. No. C-150549.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50673

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LEE MORRISON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CR-62-ALL-JRN

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

Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Lee Morrison, federal prisoner # 04133-180, appeals

the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion

to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 599 to the United

States Sentencing Guidelines. Morrison pleaded guilty to

possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm by a felon,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
No. 04-50673

-2-

Morrison argues that a sentence enhancement for possession

of a weapon constituted impermissible double counting in

violation of Amendment 599. Morrison further contends that his

sentence is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004). In light of Blakely and the Supreme Court’s recent

decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),

Morrison has filed a motion seeking the recall of this court’s

mandate affirming Morrison’s direct criminal appeal (No. 00-

51218). Morrison further requests that his case be remanded for

resentencing.

Amendment 599, which amended the commentary to U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.4, applies to convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h) and

18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 929(a). Morrison pleaded guilty to

violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and his guideline sentencing

range was computed under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, based upon his drug

conviction. Accordingly, Amendment 599 does not apply to

Morrison’s sentence. Morrison’s Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker

arguments are not cognizable in the context of a 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29

(5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE DENIED.
# Holiday cheer spreads across DLA Aviation at Ogden

/ Published Dec. 26, 2019
Richmond, Va. , 
During this time of holiday cheer, many across the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation enterprise took time to give back to their communities or enjoy time with co-workers during office holiday parties.

DLA Aviation Public Affairs asked you to send us photos and the response was overwhelming. We received dozens of photos showing off creative outfits, office parties, festive office decorations and boxes and boxes of gifts to be donated to those in need in your local communities.

Over the next couple of weeks, we will be running stories highlighting these photos, so sit back, enjoy and Happy Holidays!!
exv10w4xay



 







Exhibit 10.4(a)




CENTEX CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN




First Amendment




     WHEREAS, Centex Construction Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
established and maintains the Centex Construction Products, Inc. Amended and Restated Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan, amended and restated effective as of November 1, 2000 (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, in connection with the merger of ARG Merger Corporation with and into the Company,
certain amendments were adopted to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company,
including an amendment to change the name of the Company to Eagle Materials Inc., effective as of
January 30, 2004; and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Plan, the Company desires to amend the
Plan to reflect the change in the Company’s name;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants therein contained, the Plan is
hereby amended effective, as of January 30, 2004, as follows:



     1. The Plan is hereby amended to replace all references to “Centex Construction Products, Inc.
Amended and Restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan” with “Eagle Materials Inc. Amended and
Restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.”



     2. The Plan is hereby amended to replace the reference to “Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan
of Centex Construction Products, Inc.” with “Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan of Eagle Materials
Inc.”



     3. The Plan is hereby amended to replace all references to “Centex Construction Products,
Inc.” with “Eagle Materials Inc.”



 









 





     4. The “Payout” section of the Plan is hereby amended to remove the phrase “(including Centex
Corporation and its subsidiaries)” from the first paragraph therein.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Eagle Materials Inc. has caused these presents to be executed by its duly
authorized officer in a number of copies, all of which shall constitute one and the same
instrument, which may be sufficiently evidenced by an executed copy hereof, this 11th
day of May, 2004, but effective as of January 30, 2004.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EAGLE MATERIALS INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Arthur R. Zunker, Jr.
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Arthur R. Zunker, Jr.
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Sr. V.P.







-2-
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jiang Huai Lin, President and Chief Executive Officer of China Information Security Technology, Inc., certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 10-K of China Information Security Technology, Inc.;

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.

The registrants
other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 ensure that 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)

Designed such
internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;

c)

Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and 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

d)

Disclosed in
this report any change in the registrants internal control 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 materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

4.

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 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 16, 2009



/s/ Jiang Huai Lin

Jiang Huai Lin

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

---
# DLA Distribution RDT member expedites customers’ COVID-19 requirements

/ Published April 23, 2020
MECHANICSBURG, Pa., 
Charlie Hughley wears two hats these days. In addition to planning deployments for Defense Logistics Agency Distribution reservists, he’s also a member of DLA’s Rapid Deployment Team Blue, which was activated mid-March to support U.S. Army North as part of U.S. Northern Command’s response to COVID-19 on behalf of the Defense Department.

Hughley is helping the 13-member team determine supply needs for ARNORTH medical units mobilizing to assist hard-hit communities. He’s expediting and tracking delivery for items like respirators, protective gowns and gloves for the 337th Theater Sustainment Command and the 3rd, 4th and 13th expeditionary support commands. 

Supplies he helps provide are also being distributed to communities through ARNORTH and U.S. Northern Command coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And the team continues responding to requests for information on items like medical grade oxygen and bottled-water ordering processing.

“We educate our customers on the logistics process, how we support them [and] give them the information they need to put [orders] in so we can support them better,” he said.

Hughley is deployed in-place and working from his home in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, though some of his teammates are working onsite at ARNORTH and other locations. To expand the team’s reach amid travel restrictions, the RDT also sought volunteer support from DLA employees who are co-located with deployed units in places like Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and San Antonio, Texas.

“These are people who are not normally a part of the RDT, but they’re great Americans who have volunteered to help. They come to the RDT as an added value because, in their normal day-to-day job, they’re embedded with our customers anyway,” he said. 

As manager of DLA Distribution’s Expeditionary Logistics Reserve Program, Hughley is also integrating reservists into DLA Distribution processes to help the nationwide response in other ways.

“Putting on my joint reserve force hat means I am responsible for the accountability and tracking of personnel, ensuring they are ready to deploy, trained and ready to go,” he said, adding that the job includes tracking whether reservists are exposed to COVID-19 and assessing the impact to DLA missions.

At times, Hughley’s usual eight-hour workday extends to 12 to 14 hours, matching the pace of some of his customers who are on a 24/7 schedule. He said he’s driven by a strong work ethic and desire to support warfighters. 

“I truly believe one’s work ethic defines their character and moral compass, Hughley said. “It is easy to set a standard of completeness when you believe in the cause. At that point, it is no longer considered work; it is for the betterment of the cause, which is ‘the warfighter comes first.’”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Osman Osman, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 30]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered November 30, 2010, as amended December 14, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted rape in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since, to the extent defendant’s comments at sentencing could be construed as a plea withdrawal motion, that motion did not raise any of the issues raised on appeal, defendant’s challenges to the voluntariness of his plea do not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see *People v Conceicao,*26 NY3d 375, 381-382 [2015]; *People v Peque,*22 NY3d 168, 183 [2013], *cert denied*574 US —, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits.

Nothing in the plea allocution record casts doubt on defendant’s understanding of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty. Although defendant had a history of mental illness, his competency had been established through proceedings under CPL article 730, and he coherently answered all the court’s questions about the rights he was waiving.

The court was not required to inquire into the existence of a *495possible psychiatric or renunciation defense, because “[defendant said nothing during the plea colloquy or the sentencing proceeding that negated an element of the crime or raised the possibility of a [psychiatric or renunciation] defense” *(People v Pastor,*28 NY3d 1089, 1090-1091 [2016]). Unlike the situation in *People v Mox*(20 NY3d 936 [2012]), there was nothing in the actual plea allocution that triggered a duty to inquire into an potential psychiatric defense. Defendant’s cryptic, nonresponsive use of the phrase “state of mind,” immediately followed by an unequivocal declaration that he was “guilty,” did not raise a psychiatric defense, and defendant’s current assertion that he had a viable renunciation defense is based entirely on information extrinsic to the plea and sentence proceedings.

Defendant’s unpreserved *Peque*claim does not warrant any remedy in the interest of justice *(see e.g. People v Diakite,*135 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1131 [2016]).

Finally, neither defendant’s vague expression of dissatisfaction with his attorney during the plea colloquy, which was not accompanied by an explicit request for new counsel, nor his complaint about counsel at sentencing, which was plainly the product of a misunderstanding about credit for time served, was the type of serious complaint that would trigger the court’s obligation to make a minimal inquiry *(see People v Porto,*16 NY3d 93, 100-101 [2010]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                   


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (683)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,610
<PP&E>                                           7,977
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,155)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,313
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,436
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,317)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,432
<SALES>                                         71,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,332
<CGS>                                           45,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,431)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       130
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,561)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)
        

</TABLE>
#### Enrique Bayona, Respondent, v Hertz Corporation, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 353]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered on July 7, 2016, which denied defendant’s summary judgment motion, and sua sponte granted plaintiff partial summary judgment to the extent of finding that plaintiff was not a special employee of defendant, and that the action is not barred under Workers’ Compensation Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties do not dispute the facts in this action. The record establishes that plaintiff, a maintenance worker, is an employee of nonparty CB Richard Ellis. Plaintiff was assigned to work at two Hertz locations. Although Hertz management generally directed the manner, details, and result of plaintiff’s work, there is no evidence that Hertz had “complete and exclusive control” over such work or that CB Richard Ellis surrendered its right to control and direct plaintiff’s work *(see Holmes v Business Relocation*Servs., *Inc.,*117 AD3d 468, 468 [1st Dept 2014], *affd*25 NY3d 955 [2015]; *Bharat v Bronx Lebanon Hosp. Ctr.,*106 AD3d 540, 540 [1st Dept 2013]; *Bellamy v Columbia Univ.,*50 AD3d 160, 165 [1st Dept 2008]).

Rather, the evidence demonstrates that CB Richard Ellis retained some control over plaintiff. CB Richard Ellis paid plaintiff’s wages, had the right to hire or discharge him, had the right to reassign him, and retained control over him with respect to assigned tasks outside his normal daily activities. In addition, plaintiff reported back to CB Richard Ellis supervisors on a regular basis, and spoke with them about numerous things, including obtaining certain tools and assigning someone else to help him. Plaintiff also wore a uniform daily that identified him as an CB Richard Ellis employee, and the contract between CB Richard Ellis and Hertz explicitly stated that CB Richard Ellis retained “sole control” of management of personnel, including plaintiff.

In addition to correctly denying Hertz’s summary judgment motion, Supreme Court properly searched the record to find *609that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was not a special employee of Hertz *(see Siegel Consultants, Ltd. v Nokia, Inc.,*85 AD3d 654, 656-657 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 809 [2012]).

Concur — Richter, J.R, Mazzarelli, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
S. 2004

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

An Act

To extend until July 1, 1998, the exemption from ineligibility based on a high

default rate for certain institutions of higher education.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

The matter preceding clause (i) of section 435(a)(2)(C) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(a)(2)(C)) is amended

by striking ‘‘July 1, 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘July 1, 1998’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Celso Pena, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 239]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered November 24, 2015, as amended March 16, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of inconsistencies in testimony. The police had reasonable suspicion justifying the stop of the car defendant was driving, based on the car’s occupants’ multiple attempts to use credit cards at a variety of locations within a short period of time, several of which were unsuccessful.

The police also had probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Defendant does not dispute that the police had probable cause to arrest his codefendants, but claims that they lacked probable cause to arrest him. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable person to conclude that he knowingly participated in the forged credit card scheme *(see e.g. People v Petithomme,*131 AD3d 877 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1004 [2016]). Defendant drove his codefendants around for over an hour, making multiple stops so they could attempt transactions with the forged credit cards, and accompanied them during one of these transactions. “In order to establish probable cause, the People were not required to prove accessorial liability under Penal Law § 20.00 beyond a reasonable doubt” *(id.*at 878).

Concur— Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Andrias, Gische, Kern and Singh, JJ.