alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# The Endangered Species Act

# Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

                    The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531*et seq*., reflects one of the Nation's profound commitments. Pursuant to that Act, the Federal Government has long required a process of broad interagency consultation to ensure the application of scientific and technical expertise to decisions that may affect threatened or endangered species. Under that interagency process, executive departments and agencies (agencies) contemplating an action that may affect endangered or threatened species have long been required, except in certain limited circumstances, to consult with, and in some circumstances obtain the prior written concurrence of, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)—the expert agencies that have the primary responsibility to ensure that the ESA is implemented in accordance with the law.                

                    On December 16, 2008, the Departments of the Interior and Commerce issued a joint regulation that modified these longstanding requirements. See 73                     *Fed. Reg.*                     76272. This new regulation expands the circumstances in which an agency may determine not to consult with, or obtain the written concurrence of, the FWS or NMFS prior to undertaking an action that may affect threatened or endangered species. But under the new regulation, agencies may continue the previous practice of consulting with, and obtaining the written concurrence of, the FWS and NMFS as a matter of discretion.                

I hereby request the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to review the regulation issued on December 16, 2008, and to determine whether to undertake new rulemaking procedures with respect to consultative and concurrence processes that will promote the purposes of the ESA.

Until such review is completed, I request the heads of all agencies to exercise their discretion, under the new regulation, to follow the prior longstanding consultation and concurrence practices involving the FWS and NMFS.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Agencies shall carry out the provisions of this memorandum to the extent permitted by law and consistent with statutory authorities.

                    The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. E9-4880

Billing code 4310-10-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50387 Summary Calendar

ROBROY INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOSEPH SCHWALBACH; CL SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s unopposed motion for limited remand to USDC for the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division, for the limited purposes to permit the district court to grant Appellant’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion is GRANTED. We REMAND for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to grant the R ule 60(b) relief, vacating the judgment and reopening the record. Once that has been accomplished, the parties can appeal to this court from any United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 18, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50387

2 final order. See Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Perambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, No. 02-20042, 2003 WL 21027134, at *5 (5th Cir. March 5, 2003). This remand is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to any issue or argument raised in this appeal. REMANDED.
Exhibit
      23.1





**MOORE
        & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED**
 ***ACCOUNTANTS
        AND
        ADVISORS***
 ***PCAOB
        REGISTERED***
 
 
 
 
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 
 
 We
        consent to the use, in the Annual Report, Form 10-KSB, of Studio One Media,
        Inc., of our report dated September 27,2007 on
        our
        audit of the financial statements of Studio One Media, Inc., as of June 30,
        2007
        and 2006, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and
        cash flows for June 30, 2007 and 2006 and from inception July 1, 2002 through
        June 30, 2007 and the periods then ended.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Moore
        & Associates Chartered
 Las
        Vegas, Nevada
 September
        28, 2007
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *2675
        S. Jones Blvd. Suite 109, Las Vegas, NV 89146 (702)253-7511 Fax
        (702)253-7501*
NO. 07-10-0327-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL D 

SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 

BURNWOOD, INC., 

 Appellant 

 v. 

CRAIG, TERRILL, HALE & GRANTHAM, LLP, H. GRADY 

TERRILL, ANDREW B. CURTIS; RUSTY CAGLE D/B/A 

RED BOTTOMS A/K/A FLATLANDER’S, RAVAN RAY, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A RAYLAND PROPERTIES, 

INC., RAYLAND PROPERTIES, INC, and BRIAN 

TEAL, INDIVIDUALLY, 

 Appellees 

 ____________________________ 

FROM THE 72nd DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; 

NO. 2007-543,077-A; HON. RUBEN REYES, PRESIDING 

 

Memorandum Opinion 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant Burnwood, Inc. filed their notice of appeal on August 12, 2010. 

However, appellant did not pay the $175 filing fee required from appellants under Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. Nor did they file an affidavit of indigence per Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 20.1. By letter from this Court dated August 12, 2010, we 
2 

informed appellant that Athe filing fee in the amount of $175.00 has not been paid . . . . 

Failure to pay the filing fee within ten (10) days from the date of this notice may result in a 

dismissal.@ TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); see Holt v. F. F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 

App. –Amarillo 1998, pet. ref=d). The deadline lapsed, and the fee was not received. 

Because appellant has failed to pay the requisite filing fee as directed by the court, 

we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). 

 

Per Curiam
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4987 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an increased maximum 

penalty for telemarketing fraud targeting seniors, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2006 

Mr. HAYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Government Reform and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an increased maximum penalty for telemarketing fraud targeting seniors, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Seniors Taking on 

5 Phony Marketers Act of 2006’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4987 IH 

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR TELE2 MARKETING FRAUD TARGETING SENIORS. 

3 Section 2326 of title 18, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘10 years’’ and inserting ‘‘15 years’’. 

5 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

6 There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 

7 year 2007 for the purposes of enforcing chapter 113A of 

8 title 18, United States Code, and related matters— 

9 (1) $10,000,000 for the Postal Inspection Serv10 ice to hire, equip, and train no fewer than 50 postal 

11 inspectors and support staff to investigate tele12 marketing fraud cases; 

13 (2) $3,500,000 to hire, equip, and train no 

14 fewer than 30 Department of Justice attorneys, as15 sistant United States Attorneys, and support staff to 

16 prosecute telemarketing fraud cases; 

17 (3) $5,000,000 for the Postal Inspection Serv18 ice to conduct, in cooperation with State and local 

19 law enforcement agencies and senior citizen advocacy 

20 organizations, public awareness and prevention ini21 tiatives for senior citizens, such as seminars and 

22 training; and 

23 (4) $2,500,000 for the Federal Trade Commis24 sion to conduct public information awareness cam25 paigns and prevention initiatives for senior citizens 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4987 IH 

1 and to publicize available assistance such as 1877– 

2 FTC–HELP. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Hamish Malkin, Chief Financial Officer of Argentex Mining Corporation (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer), certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Argentex Mining Corporation;

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

4.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) for the company 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 company, 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 company'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 

(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company'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 company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting. 

Date:  September 13, 2006

 

/s/ Hamish Malkin                            

Hamish Malkin

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)
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).

AH/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LUCIO RIVERA PEREZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50123

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01073-SVW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Lucio Rivera Perez appeals from his 60-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in possession of a firearm and

FILED

MAR 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AH/Research 09-50123

ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). We have jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by, among other

things, failing to address his mitigation arguments that he did not know that the

firearm he possessed had an obliterated serial number, and that his criminality was

caused by his alcoholism. He also contends that the district court did not

adequately justify his above-Guidelines sentence. The record reflects that the

district court listened to the parties’ arguments and that it adequately explained the

sentence. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.

2009). 

Perez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

record further reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, Perez’s sentence

is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,

991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338

(2007).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 31

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oxford Ventures, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert Harrison, as
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


By:  /s/ Robert Harrison
------------------------
Robert Harrison
President, CEO
August 14, 2003
Exhibit 31.2
IEA Income Fund IX
Rule 13a-14 Certifications
          I, John Kallas, certify that:
          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IEA Income Fund IX(the “Registrant”);
          2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
          3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
          4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), theGeneral Partner of the Registrant, and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:
               (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; and
               (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod 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 mostrecent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
          5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
               (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: March 26, 2004
/s/ JOHN KALLASJohn Kallas
Revised Schedule to Severance Agreements



 Exhibit 10.13(a) 

Revised Schedule to Severance Agreement 
 Horace Mann Educators Corporation (“HMEC”) and Horace Mann Service Corporation (“HMSC”) entered into severance agreements for change of control with the following persons on the dates
shown. These agreements are substantially similar to the one included as Exhibit 10.12 to HMEC’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 except that the multiple of the highest annual compensation received by the
employee in the five preceding years used to determine a one-time cash payment is equal to the duration listed below. 
  

							
	 Employee
	  	 Duration
	  	 Original

Agreement Date
	 	 Replacement

Agreement Date

				
	 Ann M. Caparrós 
	  	2.9 years	  	 March 1994
	 	December 2008
	 Peter H. Heckman 
	  	2.9 years	  	 April 2000
	 	December 2008
	 Paul D. Andrews 
	  	2 years	  	 July 2001
	 	December 2008
	 Bret A. Conklin 
	  	2 years	  	 January 2002
	 	December 2008
	 Dwayne D. Hallman 
	  	2 years	  	 January 2003
	 	December 2008
	 Ricky A. Renner 
	  	2 years	  	 July 2001
	 	December 2008
	 Robert E. Rich 
	  	2 years	  	 February 2001
	 	December 2008


  
 -1-
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4464]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8777-2]


Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection 
Restrictions; Petition for Exemption--Class I Hazardous Waste Injection 
Rubicon, LLC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a Final Decision on a No Migration Petition 
Reissuance.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that an exemption to the land disposal 
restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act has been granted to Rubicon, 
LLC, (Rubicon) for four Class I injection wells located at Geismar, 
Louisiana. As required by 40 CFR part 148, the company has adequately 
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency 
by the petition and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable 
degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous 
constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains 
hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection by 
Rubicon of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this 
exemption into Class I hazardous waste injection wells Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 
5 at the Geismar, Louisiana facility, until December 31, 2025, unless 
EPA moves to terminate this exemption under provisions of 40 CFR 
148.24. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be 
reviewed by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. As 
required by 40 CFR 148.22(b) and 124.10, a public notice was issued on 
December 23, 2008. The public comment period closed on February 9, 
2009. No comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency 
action, and there is no administrative appeal. This decision may be 
reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

DATES: This action is effective as of February 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and all pertinent information 
relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, Source 
Water Protection Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/
UIC Section, EPA--Region 6, telephone (214) 665-7150.

    Dated: February 18, 2009.
Miguel I. Flores,
Division Director, Water Quality Protection Division.
[FR Doc. E9-4464 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 17, 202 4

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24

- 0263

Lower Tribunal No. AH6TZVE

________________



### Christian Cardona

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738

(1967), from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Robin Faber , Judge.

Christian Cardona , in proper person.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY, and BOKOR , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.