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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 441 

For the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, 

Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2011 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna 

Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael 

Arreola. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law or any order, for the purposes of the Immigra6 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 

7 Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, 

8 Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola shall be 

9 deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained 

10 in, the United States, and shall be eligible for issuance 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 441 IS

1 of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status under 

2 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

3 U.S.C. 1255). 

4 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub5 section (a) shall apply only if the applications for issuance 

6 of immigrant visas or the applications for adjustment of 

7 status are filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 

8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

9 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

10 Upon the granting of immigrant visas to Esidronio 

11 Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely 

12 Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola, the Secretary of 

13 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 4, dur14 ing the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number 

15 of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 

16 the country of birth of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Marina 

17 Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy 

18 Jael Arreola under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 

19 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the 

20 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 

21 to natives of the country of birth of Esidronio Arreola22 Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Car23 los, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 202(e) of such 

24 Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(c)). 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 441 IS

1 (d) PAYGO.—The budgetary effects of this Act, for 

2 the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You3 Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the 

4 latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 

5 Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

6 Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate 

7 Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been 

8 submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.35

 

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO

NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

 

SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, INC.

2013 OMNIBUS LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

 

This AMENDMENT TO NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), by and between Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and                         , an employee of the Company or one or more of its Subsidiaries (the “Participant”), shall be effective as of                    .  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Amended Incentive Plan (as defined below).

 

RECITALS

 

A.The Company adopted the Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc. 2013 Omnibus Long-Term Incentive Plan, effective as of October 24, 2013 (the “Incentive Plan”).

 

B.The Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) approved an amendment and restatement of the Incentive Plan, effective as of December 11, 2014 (the “Amended Incentive Plan”), to provide that Participants may, upon receipt of advance written approval of the Compensation Committee of the Board and in accordance with the terms of the Amended Incentive Plan, transfer an Incentive Award (other than Options constituting incentive stock options) to a Permitted Transferee without consideration.

 

C.In order to reflect the revised transfer provisions set forth in the Amended Incentive Plan, the Participant and the Company desire to amend the terms of the Participant’s Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, dated as of                           (the “Option Agreement”), pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Amendment.   

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree to amend the Option Agreement as follows: 

 

AGREEMENT

 


	
1.
	
Section 6 of the Option Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:




 

6.Non-Transferability.  The Option and the Participant’s rights hereunder shall not be transferable other than in accordance with the terms of the Plan and, except as otherwise permitted by the Plan, during the lifetime of the Participant the Option may be exercised only by the Participant or by the Participant’s guardian or legal representative.

 

 




 

2.Except as set forth herein, the Option Agreement remains in full force and effect.

 

3.The parties shall execute and deliver such other instruments and do such other acts as may be necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Amendment.

 

4.This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts.  All executed counterparts shall constitute one agreement notwithstanding that all signatories are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above.

 

 

SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, INC.:PARTICIPANT:

 

By:  

       Name:                                    

       Title:  





2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CR-105-JVB-JEM

 )

PATRICIA TELLEZ, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT PATRICIA TELLEZ

TO: THE HONORABLE JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Patricia Tellez’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge John E.

Martin on August 9, 2016, with the consent of Defendant Tellez, counsel for Defendant Tellez, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Tellez’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 11 before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant Tellez under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for Defendant Tellez,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Tellez understands the nature of the charge against her to which the plea

is offered;

(2) that Defendant Tellez understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and her

right against compelled self-incrimination;
(3) that Defendant Tellez understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant Tellez understands that the sentencing

guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant Tellez has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises;

(5) that Defendant Tellez is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Tellez understands that her answers may later be used against her in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant Tellez’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Patricia Tellez’s plea of guilty to the offenses

charged in Count 1 of the Information and that Defendant Tellez be adjudged guilty of the offenses

charged in Count 1 of the Information and have a sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been

ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and Defendant Tellez be adjudged

guilty, sentencing before Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen will be set at a later date by separate order. 

Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen

(14) days. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

So ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2016.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Honorable Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pablo Carlos RAMIREZ-CAMERON, also known as Pablo Ramirez-Cameron, also known as Jose Lorenzo Spearman, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40823

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 5, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Pablo Carlos Ramirez-Cameron, Pecos, TX, pro se.

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pablo Carlos Ramirez-Cameron challenges his guilty plea conviction and 30-month sentence on one count of attempted illegal reentry. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the waiver provision of Ramirez’s plea agreement should be enforced. Ramirez argues that his waiver of appellate rights is invalid because he was not advised that he could plead guilty without waiving his rights.

*311A defendant may waive his statutory right to appeal as part of a valid plea agreement if the waiver is knowing and voluntary. *United States v. Melancon,*972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir.1992). To determine the effectiveness of a waiver, this court conducts a two-step inquiry, asking (1) whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary and (2) whether, under the plain language of the plea agreement, the waiver applies to the circumstances at issue. *United States v. Bond,*414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir.2005). For a defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal to be knowing and voluntary, the “defendant must know that he had a right to appeal his sentence and that he was giving up that right.” *United States v. Portillo,*18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As part of the plea colloquy, the district court must address the defendant in open court and determine whether the defendant understands the waiver. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. ll(b)(l)(N).

At his rearraignment, Ramirez acknowledged his signature on his plea agreement and stated that his lawyer had explained the agreement to him. The magistrate judge explained the terms of the waiver provision to Ramirez, who indicated his understanding of the waiver provision and asked no questions. We are therefore satisfied that Ramirez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and his sentence. *See Portillo,*18 F.3d at 292.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

*

 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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 25, 2011 

d0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

141868 

GET BACK UP, INC. and WILLIAM TAYLOR, 

Petitioners-Appellants, 

v SC: 141868 

 COA: 299190 

Wayne CC: 08-107348-AA 

DETROIT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, 

Respondent-Appellee, 

and 

RUSSELL WOODS SULLIVAN AREA 

ASSOCIATION, 

Intervenor-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 29, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determ ined 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 2, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60897 Summary Calendar

WILLIAMS INSULATION, Petitioner,

versus OCCUPATIONAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; ELAINE CHAO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
Appeal from the United States Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

(Docket No. 05-0031)

_________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Williams Insulation petitions for review of a Final Order of the United States Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission relating to a citation and penalty for failure to ensure rooftop laborer Juan Gomez was protected by fall arrest systems in1 ConAgra Flour Milling Co. , 15 BNA OSHC 1817, 1823, 1992 OSHD ¶29,808

(1992).
2 violation of 29 C.F.R. 1926.501(b)(13). Reviewing the record for substantial evidence, we deny the petition because substantial evidence supports the finding that Gomez was engaged in construction-related rooftop activities without fall protection. Williams relies on the exception to the fall protection requirement provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(a)(1) for employees engaged in inspection, investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work. When a standard contains an exception to its general requirement, the burden of proving that the exception applies lies with the party claiming the benefit of the exception. 1 Williams introduced no witnesses and adduced no testimony to support its contention that Gomez was engaged in pre-work inspection and fall anchor installation at the time the inspection occurred. Other than the assertions of Williams’s counsel and remarks of one compliance officer as to what Gomez claimed to be doing, there is nothing in the record to establish that Gomez was engaged in exempted activities while on the roof without fall protection.
PETITION DENIED.
[No. 40638-8-I.

Division One.

August 11, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Charles Olson, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-05461-1, Ricardo S. Martinez, J., entered April 2, 1997. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### GLEASON, Respondent, v. JAMES CUNNINGHAM, SON & CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, F'ourth Department.

September 25, 1907.)

Action by Elizabeth Gleason, an infant, etc., against James Cunningham, Son & Co. and others.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 105 N. Y. Supp. 1117.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the
period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Durham, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul DurhamPaul DurhamChief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting OfficerDate: April 14, 2006
# L_2008258EN.01006001.xml

| 26.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 258/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 258/60

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 947/2008

of 25 September 2008

suspending the export refunds on white and raw sugar exported without further processing

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 32(1) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(b) of that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 32(1) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(b) of that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.

| (2) | In view of the current market situation in the sugar sector and future prospects as regards availability and demand on the Community market, export refunds should not be granted for the products in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of the current market situation in the sugar sector and future prospects as regards availability and demand on the Community market, export refunds should not be granted for the products in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No refunds shall be granted for the following products:

| | 1701 11 90 9100 |
| --- | --- |

1701 11 90 9100

| | 1701 11 90 9910 |
| --- | --- |

1701 11 90 9910

| | 1701 12 90 9100 |
| --- | --- |

1701 12 90 9100

| | 1701 12 90 9910 |
| --- | --- |

1701 12 90 9910

| | 1701 91 00 9000 |
| --- | --- |

1701 91 00 9000

| | 1701 99 10 9100 |
| --- | --- |

1701 99 10 9100

| | 1701 99 10 9910 |
| --- | --- |

1701 99 10 9910

| | 1701 99 10 9950 |
| --- | --- |

1701 99 10 9950

| | 1701 99 90 9100. |
| --- | --- |

1701 99 90 9100.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 26 September 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

1

---
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Terra Nostra Resources Corp. (the Corporation) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeff Reynolds, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the       
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                        
|                                                                                            
|(2)  The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
|financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.                           
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|Date:                                                                                       
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            

---