alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders

and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions

of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 2/21/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 95-7092

(D. Ct. No. CR-95-2-S)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge; TACHA and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

William Wright pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Wright to

a term of 37 months, three years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $50.00. 

Wright appeals that sentence as excessive, claiming that the penalty provisions of 21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(B) establish a scientifically meaningless distinction between “cocaine” and “cocaine

base” and thus the distinction must be ignored by operation of the rule of lenity.

We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines

de novo. United States v. McAlpine, 32 F.3d 484, 487-88 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.
- 2 -

610 (1994). We have repeatedly held that the distinction between cocaine base and cocaine is a

rational one. United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500, 1530 (10th Cir.), cert denied, 116 S. Ct.

218 (1995); United States v. Smith, 24 F.3d 1230, 1235 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 270

(1994); United States v. Thurmond, 7 F.3d 947, 950-53 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct.

1311 (1994); United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956, 959-60 (10th Cir.), cert denied, 502 U.S.

881 (1991). The distinction between the two forms of the drug is based on a policy choice made

by Congress. “Congress provided for enhanced penalties for cocaine base offenses because

cocaine base (1) has a more rapid onset of action, (2) is more potent, (3) is more highly addictive,

(4) is less expensive than cocaine powder, and (5) has widespread availability.” Thurmond, 7

F.3d at 952-53. The distinction has a rational basis, and is clear enough that it does not implicate

the rule of lenity. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge
Exhibit
10.49


 


March 31, 2010


 


Russell Goldsmith


City National Bank


400 North Roxbury, 8th Floor


Beverly Hills, CA 90210


 


Dear Russell:


 


This is to confirm the
following amendments to your Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated December 22,
2008 (“Agreement”).  All capitalized
terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth
in the Agreement.


 


1.                                       Section 6(a) of the Agreement
is amended to add the following to the end thereof:


 


Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the aggregate amount of Annual Bonus paid to Goldsmith pursuant to
all such bonus plans for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 shall be not less than the Target Bonus Amount for 2010 if plan goals are
achieved, scaled up to 200% of the Target Bonus Amount for 2010 if 154% of plan
goals are achieved (rather than 130% of plan goals as in the immediately
preceding sentence) and scaled down to 15% of the Target Bonus Amount for 2010
if 70% of plan goals are achieved, in accordance with the methodology
established by the Committee and provided to Goldsmith as of the date hereof.


 


2.                                       Section 10(f) of the Agreement
is amended to substitute for the term “ninetieth (90th) day” in each place
where it is used, the term “thirtieth (30th) day”.


 


3.                                       Other than as set forth herein, the
Agreement remains in full force and effect.


 


Please sign this letter
confirming your agreement to the foregoing amendments of Section 6(a) and
10(f) of your Agreement.


 


	
  Accepted & Agreed

  	
   

  	
  City National Bank

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
    /s/ Russell
  Goldsmith

  	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Christopher J. Carey

  
	
  Russell Goldsmith

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Christopher J. Carey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  EVP and Chief Financial
  Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  City National Corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Christopher J. Carey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Christopher J. Carey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  EVP and Chief Financial
  Officer
- Home
- Visiting Capitol Hill
- Regulations & Prohibitions 

# No Drone Zone

The Capitol Police Board has established *Traffic Regulations for the U.S. Capitol Grounds* that detail those activities that are prohibited and rules that are enforced by the U.S. Capitol Police.  These regulations provide for the safety of all persons on Capitol Grounds; prevent destruction or damage to Capitol Grounds; preserve healthy and sanitary surroundings; and maintain the Capitol Grounds in an attractive and intact condition for the enjoyment of all visitors.	Chapter 16 of the regulations addresses recreational activities and special restrictions within the U.S. Capitol Grounds.  	Specifically, §16.2.90 MODEL ROCKETS and BOATS: strictly prohibits the use of model rockets, remote or manually-controlled model gliders, model airplanes or unmanned aircrafts, model boats and model cars on Capitol Grounds.        Image    In addition, Federal law prohibits flying Unmanned Aircraft Systems, such as drones, anywhere in the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C. and the U.S. Capitol Grounds are designated as a **NO DRONE ZONE**.	Anyone violating Traffic Regulation §16.2.90 will be subject to arrest, a $300 fine, and/or 90 days imprisonment and may also face additional federal civil and criminal penalties.

## Visiting Capitol Hill

              - Visitor Information
              - Official Business
              - Activities Requiring Permits
              - Regulations & Prohibitions
# Documenting Confined Structure Fires

**Posted: June 29, 2023**

            -   Find similar NFIRSGrams:
            - Basic Module
            - Coding
            - Other Modules

            - Share on:
            - 
            - 
            - 

This NFIRSGram explains how to document confined structure fires using the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). It also addresses how to edit an NFIRS report if a person initially injured in a confined fire later succumbed to his or her injuries as a result of the fire.

## What is a confined structure fire?

Confined structure fires are typically small fire incidents occurring within a structure that are limited in extent to specific types of equipment or objects — staying within pots, fireplaces or certain other noncombustible containers. In NFIRS, a confined structure fire is defined by Incident Type codes 113 to 118 as shown in the table below.

Confined structure fires rarely result in serious injury or large content loss and are expected to have no significant accompanying property loss due to flame damage. Content loss includes losses to the contents of a structure due to damage by fire, smoke, water and overhaul. Property loss includes losses to the structure itself or to the property itself.

For confined fires, the expectation is that the fire did not spread beyond the container (or rubbish for Incident Type code 118); therefore, there was no property damage (damage to the structure itself) from the flames. However, there could be property damage as a result of smoke, water and overhaul.

It is also important to note that a fire contained to an item, such as a bed, oven or clothes dryer, is not defined as a “confined fire” in the NFIRS because of the greater potential for spread. Unlike fires in pots or chimneys, there is no noncombustible container to stop the fire, even though the fire did not spread beyond the object of origin.

Additionally, fires that take place in combustible cooking equipment products, such as coffee pots, toasters, toaster ovens, or microwave ovens, should not be reported as confined fires. These fires require the completion of the NFIRS Fire Module so that the equipment involved in ignition can be recorded for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to then track the products involved in ignition.

## What criteria are used to classify a confined structure fire in NFIRS?

            - The rule of thumb to follow when completing an NFIRS incident report, when it is believed the structure fire may be confined, is:
            - If the incident fits the description of one of the structure fire incident type codes between 113 and 118 (inclusive),  and  the property loss is less than or equal to $5,000,  and  no civilian deaths and/or no firefighter deaths occurred as a result of the fire, then the fire can be reported as “confined.”

## How do I report a confined structure fire in NFIRS?

For more information about NFIRS, please contact the NFIRS Support Center: Monday – Friday between 8 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. ET, at 888-382-3827 or by email at fema-nfirshelp@fema.dhs.gov.
Exhibit 15



R&B Falcon Corporation



     We are aware that R&B Falcon Corporation has incorporated by
reference  in  its  Registration Statements No.  333-43475,  333-
67755,  333-67757, 333-68101, 333-81179, 333-81181 and  333-81381
its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1999, which includes
our  report  dated  July 23, 1999 covering the unaudited  interim
financial  information contained therein.  Pursuant to Regulation
C  of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a
part  of the registration statement prepared or certified by  our
firm  or  a  report prepared or certified by our firm within  the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.




/s/Arthur Andersen LLP
Arthur Andersen LLP

Houston, Texas
August 10, 1999
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41517

KRISTINA LOPEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CMH HOMES, INC. d/b/a

CLAYTON HOMES OF GALLUP,

Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCKINLEY COUNTY

Louis E. DePauli, District Court Judge

Rosebrough, Fowles & Foutz, P.C.

Douglas W. Fowles

Gallup, NM

Ferrance Law, P.C.

David Ferrance

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Butt Thorton & Baehr, P.C.

Rodney L. Schlagel

Stuart H. Wilkins

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ATTREP, Chief Judge.
{1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 

proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 

been filed and the time for doing so has expired. AFFIRMED.

{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the balance sheet and income statement and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1,000

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                                   7,254
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           67,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                             1,065
<INVENTORY>                                             88,639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       178,999
<PP&E>                                                  18,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                           9,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         202,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   82,583
<BONDS>                                                 37,309
<COMMON>                                                 8,543
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                              74,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           202,699
<SALES>                                                361,134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       361,134
<CGS>                                                  331,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          331,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        20,608
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       3,621
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             97
<INCOME-TAX>                                              (678)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        775
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                1,522
<NET-INCOME>                                              (747)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.09)


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 690 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from 

listed property under section 280F. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2009 

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. HERGER, Mr. 

CANTOR, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mrs. BONO MACK, and Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of 

California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove 

cell phones from listed property under section 280F. 

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 ‘‘Modernize Our Book5 keeping In the Law for Employee’s Cell Phone Act of 

6 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 690 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES (OR SIMILAR 

2 TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT) FROM 

3 LISTED PROPERTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

5 280F(d)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (defining listed 

6 property) is amended by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of 

7 clause (iv), by striking clause (v), and by redesignating 

8 clause (vi) as clause (v). 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 January 1, 2009. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.27
Summary of Director, Committee and Chairperson Compensation




On November 6, 2019, the Board of Directors of the Company approved cash director fees, committee member fees and chairperson fees to be paid to non-management directors of the Company in fiscal 2020. Director fees, committee fees and chairperson fees are only paid to non-management directors as summarized below: 


Each non-management director will receive a director fee of $15,000 per Board meeting attended in person or by teleconference, paid quarterly and not to exceed $60,000 per year. 


Each non-management director who serves on a committee of the Board of Directors will receive a fee of $1,250 per committee meeting attended in person or by teleconference, paid quarterly and not to exceed $5,000 per year. 


Each non-management director who serves as the chairperson of a committee of the Board of Directors shall receive a fee of $625 per committee meeting attended in person or by teleconference, paid quarterly and not to exceed $2,500 per year.
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
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 Form 10-K of Southern Union Company (the “Company”) for the
six-month period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George L. Lindemann,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) **** 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.
  
  /s/
GEORGE L. LINDEMANN
 George L.
Lindemann
 Chairman
of the Board and
 Chief
Executive Officer
 June 28,
2005
  
  This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Zoya N. Shalamova, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Irina Pinksy, D.D.S., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br></partyblock>
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Secured Data, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Sanding Tao, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report 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.

Date: August 23, 2005


/S/ Sanding Tao
---------------
Sanding Tao
Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 8, 2022

No. 04-21-00360-CR

Kevin Jason GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR0029

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After we granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file the brief since his 

last substitution of counsel, Appellant’s brief was due on July 5, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a). On the extended due date, Appellant filed a motion for extension, requesting an 

additional thirty days to file the brief.

Appellant’s motion is granted; Appellant’s brief is due on August 4, 2022. 

Any further motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief is discouraged. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of July, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,555,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  361,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,916,000
<PP&E>                                      23,996,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,380,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,996,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          240,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,996,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,202,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,389,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                813,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            813,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   813,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 663 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, Georgia, as 

the ‘‘Yvonne Ingram-Ephraim Post Office Building’’. 

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


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

HR 663 RFS

1 SECTION 1. YVONNE INGRAM-EPHRAIM POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, 

5 Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Yvonne 

6 Ingram-Ephraim Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Yvonne Ingram11 Ephraim Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 13, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS