alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00207-CR

Jonathan Senovio Aguilar, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-06-354, HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Jonathan Senovio Aguilar seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon. Sentence was imposed on February 13, 2007. There was no motion

for new trial. The deadline for perfecting appeal was therefore March 15, 2007.

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Notice of appeal was mailed on April 3, 2007 and filed on

April 9, 2007. A motion for extension of time for filing notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 2007,

and an amended notice was filed two days later. Neither the notice of appeal nor the motion for

extension of time was filed within the fifteen-day grace period, and the motion and amended motion

are overruled. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose

of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction.

See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-
2

23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Aguilar must seek an out-of-time appeal by means of a post-conviction

habeas corpus application. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West 2005).

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 8, 2007

Do Not Publish
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1998

___________ Daniel R. Giannini, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 20, 2010 Filed: December 28, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Daniel Giannini, a federal prisoner conf ined at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucy, appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Afte r careful de novo revie w, we conclude that Giannini is not entitled to habeas relief. SeeMitchell v. U.S. Parole Comm’n , 538 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (standard of review). First, we agree with

1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Un ited States District Judge for the District of Minnesota (now retired), a dopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.the district court that neither the Due Process Clause nor 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) creates a liberty interest in receiving a sentence reduction upon completion of a Bureau of Prisons residential drug abuse program, and that no due process violation therefore occurred in this case. See Richardson v. Joslin , 501 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2007). Second, we agree with the court th at 28 C.F.R. § 550.55( c) and the related Program Statement 5331.02 were promulgated in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and are reasonable and allowabl e interpretations of their enabling act. See 5 U.S.C. § 553; Lopez v. Davis , 531 U.S. 230, 242 (2001). Finally, we agree with the court that the regulation and program st atement do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause with respect to Giannini, who wa s neither notified of his eligibility for a provisional sentence reduction nor enrolled ina residential drug abuse program before the effective date of the regula tion and program statement. See Grove v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 245 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). We note that the cases on which Giannini relies with respect to this argumen t are merely persuasive authority and are factually distinguishable, and that his re maining arguments do not provide any basis to reverse the district court. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Defense Acquisition Regulations System

# AGENCY:

Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

DoD announces an early engagement opportunity regarding implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 within the acquisition regulations.

# DATES:

Early inputs should be submitted in writing via the Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) website shown below. The website will be updated when early inputs will no longer be accepted.

# ADDRESSES:

Submit early inputs via the DARS website at *https://www.acq.osd.mil/​dpap/​dars/​early_​engagement.html.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Johnson, Tel: 703-717-8226. Send inquiries via email to *osd.dfars@mail.mil* and reference “Early Engagement Opportunity: Implementation of NDAA for FY 2021” in the subject line.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DoD is providing an opportunity for the public to provide early inputs on implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 within the acquisition regulations. The public is invited to submit early inputs on sections of the NDAA for FY 2021 via the DARS website at *https://www.acq.osd.mil/​dpap/​dars/​early_​engagement.html.* The website will be updated when early inputs will no longer be accepted. Please note, this venue does not replace or circumvent the rulemaking process. DARS will engage in formal rulemaking, in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1707, when it has been determined that rulemaking is required to implement a       ( print page 35076)    section of the NDAA for FY 2021 within the acquisition regulations.

Authority: DoD Instruction 5000.35, Defense Acquisition Regulations (DAR) System.

Jennifer D. Johnson,

Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

[FR Doc. 2021-14009 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### TAYLOR, Appellant, v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by Emma A. Taylor, as executrix, etc., against the New York Life Insurance Company. No opinion. Motion for reargument (of 133 N. Y. Supp. 746) denied, with $10 costs.
#### Roderick Young CURRY, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. James B. FRENCH, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-7629.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2006.

Decided: May 3, 2006.

Roderick Young Curry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Young Curry, Jr., a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as procedurally barred. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any disposi-tive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Curry has not demonstrated error in the district court’s dis-positive procedural ruling. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit
15.1





Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board
of Directors


Alcon,
Inc.:




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos.
333-111145, 333-100746 and 333-86882) on Form S-8 of Alcon, Inc. of our reports
dated March 16, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Alcon,
Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements
of earnings, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 20-F
of Alcon, Inc.
 
 Our
report refers to the implementation of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards (SFAS) No. 159, The
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities,SFAS
No. 158, Employers' Accounting
for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements,FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes, an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,SFAS No. 123(R), Share-Based
Payment.
 .





/s/KPMG LLP










Fort
Worth, Texas


March 16,
2009
#### Ronald Edwin KUCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lloyd RAPELJE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-2176.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 2011.

Before: MARTIN, MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner-Appellant Ronald Kuch appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Police officers arrested Kuch, who is currently on parole, after an animal control officer discovered Kuch sodomizing a dead dog in a wooded area near an elementary school. Prosecutors charged Kuch with sodomy, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.158; indecent exposure, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.335a; and resisting and obstructing an officer, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.81d(l). Michigan’s sodomy statute, the focus of Kuch’s habeas petition, penalizes “[a]ny person who ... commit[s] the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.158.

Following his preliminary examination, Kuch moved to dismiss the sodomy charge, arguing the statute did not criminalize sexual acts involving an animal carcass and challenging the statute as “unconstitutionally vague and overly broad as applied to defendants who use animal carcasses for sexual purposes.” The state trial court rejected this challenge, and the Michigan Court of Appeals declined to address Kuch’s arguments in an interlocutory appeal. Following the court of appeals’ rejection of his request for an interlocutory appeal, Kuch pleaded guilty to all three charges against him but reserved his right to challenge the constitutionality of his sodomy conviction. After sentencing, Kuch raised the same objections in an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The court denied Kuch leave to appeal, citing “lack of merit in the grounds presented,” and the Michigan Supreme Court denied discretionary review.

After exhausting his post-conviction remedies in state court, Kuch filed this habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction as “contrary to, or involv[ing] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The district court denied habeas relief, adopting the analysis of the magistrate judge as set forth in his comprehensive report and recommendation. On appeal, Kuch reprises the arguments already rejected.

Having studied the appellate record, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court’s opinion, and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that relief under § 2254(d) is not warranted. Because the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SONYA PRIVETTE

- JAMES,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA),

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 169 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of September, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### Genoveva Martinez RIOS and Agustin Armenia Martinez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-74027.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 28, 2011.

Leticia Torres Moreno, Law Offices of Leticia T. Moreno, APC, Commerce, CA, for Petitioners.

ADA Elsie Bosque, Trial, Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Genoveva Martinez Rios and Agustín Armenia Martinez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners did not demonstrate that their prior counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence. *Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir.2004). Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to make a finding regarding counsels’ competence is unsupported by the record.

*410In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

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

     I, Fred B. Zaziski, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report  of  Falcon  Natural  Gas  Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
December  31,  2004,  fully  complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Form  10-KSB  fairly  presents  in  all  material  respects  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Falcon  Natural  Gas  Corp.

Date:  April 14, 2005

                                                    By: /s/ Fred B. Zaziski
                                                       ---------------------
                                                       Fred B. Zaziski
                                                       Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory Docs





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Con Baker
- Wei Wei
- Rosemarie Hammond
- Robert Davis
- John Hartung
- Ing Ming Lee
- Lev Nemchinov
- Anna Smigocki
- Yan Zhao

Research - Hammondheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
SPLS EX 10.34 013115




Exhibit 10.34
STAPLES, INC.
EXECUTIVE LIFE INSURANCE PLANS
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS


BONUS LIFE PLAN
		
	1.
	This plan covers all named executive officers, except John Wilson. This plan was no longer offered at the time Mr. Wilson joined Staples.


		
	2.
	On a pre-retirement basis, the death benefit is equal to 3 times current annual base salary.


		
	3.
	On a post-retirement basis following 10 years of service, Staples will continue to provide a death benefit equal to 3 times annual base salary (at the time of separation of service).


		
	4.
	Alternatively, a participant can elect survivorship (or second-to-die) coverage under the Plan with a death benefit up to the maximum amount that can be obtained on a cost-neutral basis to the Staples.


		
	5.
	Staples  reimburses participants for premium payments related to this plan. Staples also provides a gross-up payment which is intended to cover the income taxes on the premium payment reimbursement.




DEATH BENEFIT ONLY PLAN
		
	1.
	This plan covers all officers of Staples, including Mr. Wilson.


		
	2.
	On a pre-retirement basis, the death benefit is equal to three (3) times current annual base salary. 


		
	3.
	On a post-retirement basis following certain age and service milestones, Staples will continue to provide a death benefit equal to two (2) times current annual base salary. 


		
	4.
	The cost for this coverage is free, and non-taxable, to the participant.


		
	5.
	The death benefit under the plan is taxable to the beneficiary.  Staples also provide a gross-up payment which is intended to cover the income taxes on the death benefit payment.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 on Form 10-Q of AMCORE Financial, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kenneth E. Edge, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|LOGO                   
|Kenneth E. Edge        
|Chief Executive Officer



November 9, 2005



This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original
of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Gaddy, Also Known as Robert M. Gaddy, Also Known as Robert Mark Gaddy, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Roberts, J.), rendered on September 14, 1982, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Milonas, JJ.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, Appellant, v. MURPHY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of the New York Mercantile Exchange, against Daniel F. Murphy, as a magistrate, etc. F. Taylor, for appellant. R. C. Taylor, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed. Order filed.