alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Manuel Pelayo SAHAGUN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Sahagun-Pelayo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50537

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Louis Elias Lopez, Jr., Esq., Law Office of Louis E. Lopez, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Manuel Pelayo Sahagun (Sahagun)1 has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Sahagun has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Sahagun’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Although indicted as Juan Manuel Pelayo Sahagun, the appellant's true name is Juan Manuel Sahagun Pelayo.
# C_2021393EN.01000901.xml

| 29.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 393/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 393/9

---

Special report No 20/2021

Sustainable water use in agriculture: CAP funds more likely to promote greater rather than more efficient water use

(2021/C 393/09)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 20/2021 ‘Sustainable water use in agriculture: CAP funds more likely to promote greater rather than more efficient water use’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9681]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration


Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information 
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information 
Collection abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The nature of the 
information collection is described as well as its expected burden. The 
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting 
comments on the following collection of information was published on 
February 7, 2000 (FR Vol. 65, No. 25, 5928). No comments were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 18, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Walker, Maritime 
Administration, MAR-810, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 
20590. Telephone 202-366-8888, or FAX 202-366-6988.
    Copies of this collection can also be obtained from that office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime Administration (MARAD).
    Title: Inventory of American Intermodal Equipment.
    OMB Control Number: OMB #2133-0503.
    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: U.S. steamship and intermodal equipment leasing 
companies.
    Form(s): None.
    Abstract: The collection consists of an intermodal equipment 
inventory that provides data essential to both the government and the 
transportation industry in planning for the most efficient use of 
intermodal equipment.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 66 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention MARAD Desk Officer.
    Comments Are Invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it within 30 days of publication.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 13, 2000.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-9681 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40028 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SHANNON CARROLL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CR-23

- - - - - - - - - - July 5, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Shannon Carroll appeals his sentence following a guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Carroll argues that the district clearly erred in making the factual determinations that he possessed firearms during the commission of the offense and that he exercised a leadership role in the offense.No. 96-40028 - 2 - Several firearms were found in Carroll’s residence which was also where Carroll stored cocaine and where he received telephone calls regarding drug transactions. This is a sufficient nexus to allow the firearm adjustment. United States v. Mergerson , 4 F.2d 337, 350 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 114 S. Ct. 1310 (1994). Carroll employed at least one other person, and more likely two people, during his course of conduct. All Carroll’s relevant conduct, and not just the transaction at issue, was pertinent to this leadership adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, intro. comment. The district court did not clearly err in its sentencing findings.
AFFIRMED.
**SUBSIDIARIES      OF THE REGISTRANT **

**O2Diesel      Corporation (the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation. The table below sets      forth all of the Company’s subsidiaries as to state or jurisdiction of      organization.**

| **Subsidiary**                                 |   | **State                  or Jurisdiction of Organization** |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |   |                                                       |
| O2Diesel,                  Inc.                |   | Delaware                                                   |
| O2Diesel                  Químicos, Ltda. |   | Brazil                                                     |
| O2Diesel                  R&D SPA, S.L.    |   | Spain                                                      |
| O2Diesel                  Europe               |   | Ireland                                                    |

----
#### Steven Reynolds, Respondent, v Creighton Morford et al., Appellants.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the automobile in which he was a passenger was involved in a one-car accident. Defendant driver admitted that he fell asleep at the wheel. The court directed a verdict for plaintiff on the issue of defendant’s negligence (CPLR 4401) at the close of defendant’s proof. A motion for a directed verdict should be granted only if the jury could not find for the nonmoving party by any rational process, and the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party *(Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth.,*41 NY2d 200, 202; *Van Syckle v Powers,*106 AD2d 711, 713, *lv denied*64 NY2d 609; *Ehlinger v Board of Educ.,*96 AD2d 708, 709; *Le May v Frankel,*80 AD2d 665; *Wessel v Krop,*30 AD2d 764, 765). To direct a verdict in this case, the court necessarily found, as a matter of law, that defendant had warning of the likelihood of his falling asleep *(Aiello v Garahan,*91 AD2d 839, 840, *affd*58 NY2d 1078; *Vignola v Britts,*11 AD2d 801). We find that, on the evidence presented at trial, a rational jury could have found that although defendant had warning that he was tired, he did not have warning that he was likely to fall asleep. "Weariness, as everyone knows who has tasted it, is a matter of degree; and sleep sometimes presses down without warning. Its presence is not always readily predictable, even with reasonable care and foresight” *(Butler v Albert,*1 AD2d 43, 44; *see also, Purchase v Jeffrey,*33 AD2d 620). In our view, the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury concerning defendant’s negligence, and a directed verdict was improperly granted.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s request to in*979struct the jury on the doctrine of express assumption of risk. Defendant wholly failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he was absolved of his duty of due care by express agreement of the plaintiff to assume the risk *(Arbegast v Board of Educ.,*65 NY2d 161).

Because a new trial is required, it is not necessary that we reach defendant’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — negligence.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4540

JAMES G. TURNER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-98-324)

Submitted: November 28, 2001

Decided: January 24, 2002

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Edwin Frederick Brooks, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.

McNulty, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

James G. Turner appeals the revocation of his supervised release

and the imposition of a nine-month prison term. Turner contends the

district court erred in considering a conviction that was not noted in

a "Petition on Probation." Turner also contends the district court

abused its discretion in failing to consider alternatives to incarceration. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Turner contends the district court committed plain error when it

considered a charge that had not been previously noted in sentencing

him. Because Turner did not raise this issue in the district court, we

review for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32

(1993). We conclude the district court did not consider Turner’s second assault charge in its decisions to revoke supervised release and

to sentence Turner to nine months’ imprisonment. Therefore, we find

no plain error. We further conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Turner to nine months’ incarceration rather

than to an alternative form of punishment. 

For these reasons, we affirm Turner’s conviction and sentence. 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. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. TURNER
exv10w4






Exhibit 10.4




THIRD AMENDMENT

TO THE

CRITICAL HOMECARE SOLUTIONS HOLDING, INC. 2006 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN



THIS THIRD AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) is made as of this 1st day of June, 2009, to the
Critical Homecare Solutions Holding, Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).




RECITALS



WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of Critical Homecare Solutions
Holdings, Inc., ( the “Company”) in its sole discretion may amend the Plan or any portion
of the Plan at any time and in such respects as it shall deem advisable; provided, however, that,
to the extent required b applicable law, regulation or stock exchange rule, stockholder approval
shall be required for any amendment to the Plan; and



WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) desires to amend the Plan in
order to provide that the Company’s initial public offering shall constitute a “company
Transaction” as defined in the Plan; and



WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is within its authority under the Plan to amend the Plan
as set forth herein, that such amendment is desired and appropriate at this time and that, although
stockholder approval of such amendment is not required, the effectiveness of such amendment shall
be subject to stockholder approval; and



WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the terms of this amendment shall be effective with respect
to each participant (as defined in the Plan) to whom one or more options under the Plan have been
previously granted; and



WHEREAS, the undersigned has been authorized by the Board to execute this Amendment the Board’s
behalf.




AMENDMENT



NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan hereby amended as follows:





	1.	 	Section 4.1 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
	 
	2.	 	Subject to adjustment from time to time as provided in Section 11.1, a maximum of 13,000,000
 shares of Common Stock shall be available for issuance under the Plan. Shares of Common Stock
issued under the Plan shall be drawn from authorized and unissued shares of Common Stock or
 shares of Common Stock now held or subsequently acquired by the Company as treasury shares.
	 
	3.	 	The definition of “Invested Capital” as contained in Appendix A to the Plan is hereby deleted
in its entirety.




 









 












	4.	 	Any inconsistent provisions of the Plan shall be read consistent with this Amendment.
	 
	5.	 	Except as amended above, each and every other provision of the Plan, as effective immediately
prior to this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect without change or modification.
	 
	6.	 	The Effective Date of this Amendment shall be June 1, 2009.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being authorized by the Board to execute this Amendment
in evidence of the adoption of this Amendment by the Board, has executed this Amendment as of the
date first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CRITICAL HOMECARE SOLUTIONS 

HOLDINGS, INC.

 	 
	 	/s/ Bob Cucuel
 	 
	 	By:                      Robert Cucuel 	 
	 	Its:                     Chief Executive Officer and President 	 
	 




2
Exhibit 32.1

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the PBSJ Corporation (the Company) hereby
certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  |                                                             
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: January 13 , 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ John B. Zumwalt III                                     
|                        |  |  |  | John B. Zumwalt III                                         
|                        |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer           
|                        |  | 
|Date: January 13 , 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Donald J. Vrana                                         
|                        |  |  |  | Donald J. Vrana                                             
|                        |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00233-CR

RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2011-DCR-2207-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 17, 2014
exv10w6






Exhibit 10.6




FOURTH AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT




BETWEEN



RETAMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,



RETAMA PARTNERS, LTD.



AND



RETAMA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.



DATED: DECEMBER 1, 1997



PREMISES: RETAMA PARK RACETRACK



SELMA, TEXAS



Fourth Amendment to Management Agreement

Initials                                          

Date                                          




27









 








FOURTH AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT



THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT effective January 1, 2010 amends that certain
Management Agreement dated as of December 1, 1997, between Retama Development Corporation having an
office at 1 Retama Parkway, Selma, Texas 78154 (“Owner”), Retama Partners, Ltd. having an office at
1964 South Alamo, San Antonio, Texas 78204 (“License Holder”), and Retama Entertainment Group,
Inc., a Texas Limited Liability Corporation, having an office at 1 Retama Parkway, Selma, Texas
78154 (“Operator”).



The Management Agreement is hereby amended as follows:




     1. The term of the Agreement outlined in Section 2.1 shall be hereby extended to November 1,
2020.


All other provisions of the Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day
and year above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	OWNER:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	RETAMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Gary P. Baber
 

Name: Gary P. Baber
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Title: Chairman	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	OPERATOR:	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	RETAMA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Bryan P. Brown
 

Name: Bryan P. Brown
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Title: CEO	 	 






Fourth Amendment to Management Agreement

Initials                                          

Date                                          





28
#### WOOD et al., Respondents, v. Cornell, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Otis E. Wood and others, as trustees, against Franklin C. Cornell.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, and leave granted to defendant to answer upon payment of the costs of the demurrer and of the appeal within 30 days.
#### TRUE v. SIBLEY.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

June 11, 1894.)

Appeal—Order Declaring Case Abandoned.

An order declaring an appeal abandoned cannot be made by a special term.

Action by Clarence True against Richard C. Sibley. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Respond-

ent moves to strike the cause from the calendar.

Denied.

Argued before McADAM and GILDERSLEEVE, JJ.

A. Reymert, for plaintiff.

Vanderpoel, Cuming & Goodwin, for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

The application fails to show that the case on appeal, which confessedly was served, has been settled and ordered on file by order of the judge who tried the cause, or that the case has been declared abandoned for failure of the appellant to procure its settlement or filing. The order obtained by the respondent at special term, declaring the appeal abandoned for nonservice of the printed papers on the appeal within the proper time, is wholly irregular. It is, in effect, an order dismissing the entire appeal. The general term is the proper tribunal to make such an order. If the- respondent had grounds which have not been disclosed for procuring an order declaring the case on appeal abandoned, he should have made the proper application and obtained the appropriate order. This would have left the appellant still at liberty to prosecute his appeal upon the judgment roll alone; and, if thereupon he had failed to serve within the time prescribed the printed papers necessary for the prosecution of the last-named appeal, the respondent might have moved at general term to have the cause stricken from the calendar, and for judgment. Upon the papers submitted, the motion, as made, must be denied, with $10 costs.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1


                 COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE
         FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND 1999

          The following calculation is submitted in accordance with requirements
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            For the three months ended               For the nine months
                                                   September 30,                     ended September 30,
                                         ----------------------------------   ----------------------------------
                                                2000             1999                2000             1999
                                         ---------------    ---------------   ---------------    ---------------
                                                               (amounts in thousands)
<S>                                         <C>              <C>                <C>                <C>
Net loss available for common
     shareholders                             ($584)           ($593)            ($26,790)             ($1,466)
                                             ======           ======             ========              =======

Weighted average common
     shares outstanding used in
     calculating basic and
     diluted net loss per
     common share                             7,119            7,201                7,119                7,206
                                             ======           ======             ========              =======

Basic and diluted net loss per common
     share                                   ($0.08)          ($0.08)              ($3.76)              ($0.20)
                                             ======           ======             ========              =======
</TABLE>


                                       38