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

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 CECILE FOY GSANGER

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

July 13, 2015

Mr. Robert J. Wortham

Criminal District Attorney

1085 Pearl Street, Suite 300

Beaumont, TX 77701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Kevin Sekaly-Cribbs

Attorney at Law

7705 Calder Avenue

Beaumont, TX 77706

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Wayln G. Thompson

Assistant District Attorney

Jefferson County Courthouse

1001 Pearl Street, 3rd Floor

Beaumont, TX 77701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. D. Ann Manes

Asst. Crim. District Attorney

1085 Pearl Street, Ste. 300

Beaumont, TX 77701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00380-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 12-14114

Style: Lawrence James Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file brief in the above cause was this 

day GRANTED by this Court. The time has been extended to Monday, August 10, 

2015.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1778

AN ACT

To provide for equal exchanges of land around the Cascade

Reservoir.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1778 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXCHANGES OF LAND EXCESS TO CASCADE

2 RESERVOIR RECLAMATION PROJECT.

3 Section 5 of Public Law 86–92 (73 Stat. 219) is

4 amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the fol5 lowing:

6 ‘‘(b) LAND EXCHANGES.—

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may ex8 change land of either class described in subsection

9 (a) for non-Federal land of not less than approxi10 mately equal value, as determined by an appraisal

11 carried out in accordance with—

12 ‘‘(A) the Uniform Relocation Assistance

13 and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of

14 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.); and

15 ‘‘(B) the publication entitled ‘Uniform Ap16 praisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisi17 tions’, as amended by the Interagency Land Ac18 quisition Conference in consultation with the

19 Department of Justice.

20 ‘‘(2) EQUALIZATION.—If the land exchanged

21 under paragraph (1) is not of equal value, the values

22 shall be equalized by the payment of funds by the

23 Secretary or the grantor, as appropriate, in an
3

S 1778 ES

1 amount equal to the amount by which the values of

2 the land differ.’’.

Passed the Senate April 13, 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1778

AN ACT

To provide for equal exchanges of land around the

Cascade Reservoir.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6030 

To allow tribal grant schools to participate in the Federal Employee Health 

Benefits program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2018 

Mrs. NOEM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight 

and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To allow tribal grant schools to participate in the Federal 

Employee Health Benefits program. 

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 ‘‘Tribal School Federal 

5 Insurance Parity Act’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6030 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN HEALTH CARE IM2 PROVEMENT ACT. 

3 Section 409 of the Indian Health Care Improvement 

4 Act (25 U.S.C. 1647b) is amended by inserting ‘‘or the 

5 Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 

6 et seq.)’’ after ‘‘(25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.)’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 1

Miller, Diane M.

From: _

Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 11:32 AM
To: NIOSH Docket Office

Cc: Shahra (Senator Bill Nelson) Anderson;

Subject: Pinellas Plant Site Profile

| attended the CDC/NIOSH meeting concerning the "Pinellas Plant Site Profile." The meeting was held on
November 2, 2005, in Pinellas Park, Florida.

One of the issues | raised was the post-D.O.E. period of 1995-1997. During this period, | was employed at
Custom Manufacturing and Engineering Incorporated (CME). This company had leased space at the "Star
Center" which was the “Pinellas Plant."

| was at this site working daily as much of the building was gutted. There were many areas that contained
radioactive materials and hazardous chemicals that were torn down in various way. One area, perhaps the worst,
was area "8" (also Know as area "108"). This area involved manufacturing neutron tubes. | saw walls, partitions,
and equipment removed.

In particular was the removal of "cells." These were thick reinforced concrete walls where radioactive materials
were stored. Hired contractors were brought in to take down these cells using non-powered hand tools, typically
sledge hammers and picks. (Story has it that the D.O.E. id not want jack hammers because of the noise
disturbing businesses located on site.) Large plastic sheets were hung from the ceiling held together with duct
tape. Dust was everywhere anyway. Employees in businesses there walked back and forth along the perimeters.

The contractors wore minimal protection. Hard hats, possible safety shoes, regular clothing, and at most a dust
mask. | never noticed a respirator.

Each day, the laborers chipped away at the concrete until it was leveled to the floor and removed. Next, the floor
was smoothed, and some leveling grout added. After that, a translucent coating was applied to seal the floor.
Note that the floor is the same floor of the "cells" where the radioactive materials were stored. Finally, a blue
paint was put on the floor and eventually the former Lockheed Martin Specialty Components machine shop,
purchased by CME, was relocated to this area.

Of particular concern here are the employees of business on site at the time as well as the employees of
contractors who did the demolition work. | saw nothing in the few minutes | viewed the "Pinellas Plant Site
Profile" at yesterday's meeting. (I requested a CD of this.) | was also surprised that the document was so small
considering the operations at the plant. | will be commenting on this "Pinellas Plant Site Profile" after | get the
cD.

My personal observation is that the "Pinellas Plant Site Profile" falls short in many areas. Another issue |
raised at the meeting was that in filing claims, ex-GEND and LMSC had to prove their employment at the "Pinellas
Plant" because many records have been lost.

GEND-LMSC employee on site
CME employee on site

11/3/2005
Exhibit 31.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a  14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



I, Charles S. Howard, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc.;



2. Based on my
knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;



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



4. The registrants other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change
in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|Date: November 7, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ Charles S. Howard                                  
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  |  | Charles S. Howard President and Chief Executive Officer
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1647

To amend the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 to remove

a restriction on the eligibility of certain activities for funding from

the Highway Trust Fund.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1999

Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. CLELAND) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To amend the National Highway System Designation Act

of 1995 to remove a restriction on the eligibility of

certain activities for funding from the Highway Trust

Fund.

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 ‘‘Highway Noise Reduc5 tion Act’’.
2

•S 1647 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.

2 Section 339 of the National Highway System Des3 ignation Act of 1995 is amended by striking subsection

4 (b) (23 U.S.C. 109 note; 109 Stat. 605).

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                             173,267
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      976,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (78,885)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,254,912
<PP&E>                                           2,210,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,368,113)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,262,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,098,699
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            45,898
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,105,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,262,769
<SALES>                                          2,185,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,185,447
<CGS>                                              975,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      650,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,112,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,554,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,554,725)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,554,725)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.01)
        


</TABLE>
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1791

AN ACT

To authorize the Librarian of Congress to purchase papers

of Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, from Dr. King’s estate.

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 ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther

5 King, Junior, Papers Preservation Act’’.
2

S 1791 ES

1 SEC. 2. PURCHASE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING PAPERS BY

2 LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Librarian of Congress is au4 thorized to acquire or purchase papers of Dr. Martin Lu5 ther King, Junior, from Dr. King’s estate.

6 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

7 are authorized to be appropriated to the Librarian of Con8 gress such sums as may be necessary to carry out this

9 Act.

Passed the Senate October 29, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1791

AN ACT

To authorize the Librarian of Congress to purchase

papers of Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, fromDr. King’s estate.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.13

October 24, 1999

Ms. Jean J. Lockhart
510 Torrey Point Road
Del Mar, California 92014

Dear Jean:

This letter is a formal offer setting forth the principal terms for you to
join Ambryx Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), which is located in
San Diego, California.

POSITION:     Executive Director, Finance & Administration. You will report
              to the President and Chief Executive Officer.

COMPENSATION: Monthly compensation will be $11,500 per month.

EQUITY:       You will be entitled to purchase at fair market value at the
              time of acceptance of employment 80,000 shares of the common
              stock of the Company (approximately 1.75% of the total common
              stock outstanding and reserved for founders). Your shares will
              vest according to the following schedules (i) twenty five
              percent (25%) of the total (20,000) will vest upon the first
              anniversary of the commencement of your employment with the
              Company; (ii) one forty-eighth (1/48) of the total
              (approximately 1,667 shares) will vest each month beginning at
              the end of the first year and will continue to vest over a
              three year period until the total 80,000 shares has vested. The
              Company has the right to repurchase any unvested shares in the
              event of termination, except in the event of involuntary
              termination as a result of a change of control.

BENEFITS:     You will be entitled to receive standard medical, life and
              dental insurance benefits similar to those typically afforded
              in similar-sized biotechnology companies. Such benefits will be
              established within six (6) months of starting employment or a
              provision of up to five hundred ($500.00) will be made.

<PAGE>

Ms. Jean J. Lockhart
October 22, 1999
Page 2


VACATION:     You will be entitled to 17 days per year of paid personal
              leave. If Ambryx establishes a company policy to close between
              Christmas and New Year's, such time off will not count against
              the 17 days.

EMPLOYMENT
AT WILL:      Your employment will be at will, which means it may be
              terminated at any time by you or the Company with or without
              cause.

START DATE:   December 1, 1999, or at another mutually agreeable date. This
              offer is subject to the approval of the Board of Directors of
              Ambryx Inc. and if not accepted by October 25, 1999, it will
              lapse.

We are excited about Ambryx's prospects for success, and anticipate that your
contribution will substantially enhance our progress. I look forward to your
joining the Company, and to working with you as we develop our business.

Sincerely,


/s/  Paul A. Grayson
     Paul A. Grayson
     President and Chief Executive Officer

SIGNED AND AGREED TO:

/s/  JEAN J. LOCKHART
------------------------
    (Jean J. Lockhart)

October 24, 1999

cc: Lubert Stryer
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

    Subsidiary Legal                       Address of               Jurisdiction of                  Percentage of
          Name                             Subsidiary                Incorporation                     Ownership
          ----                             ----------                -------------                     ---------
<S>                                     <C>                         <C>                              <C>
Entrust Technologies Limited            750 Heron Road                  Ontario                         99.999%
                                        Ottawa, ON, Canada
                                        K1V 1A7
Entrust Technologies (UK) Limited       29 The Forbury                  England                          100%
                                        Reading, Berkshire
                                        England, RG1 3oJ
r3  Security Engineering AG             6th Floor, Glatt Tower          Switzerland                      100%
                                        CH-8301 Glattzontrum
                                        Zurich, Switzerland
Entrust Technologies GMBH               Hessenring 119-121              Germany                          100%
                                        61348 Bad Homburg
                                        Germany
Entrust Technologies (Switzerland)      6th Floor, Glatt Tower          Switzerland                      100%
 Ltd. Liab. Co.                         CH-8301 Glattzentrum
                                        Zurich, Switzerland
Entrust.net Limited                     750 Heron Road                  Ontario                          100%
                                        Ottawa, ON, Canada
                                        K1V 1A7
</TABLE>
## ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# 67svr *7*-/jr COA# 03-13-00206-CR OFFENSE: 22.021 Rodolfo Cisneros v. The State of 

### STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Hays Modified and, as COA DISPOSITION: Modified, Affirmed TRIAL COURT: 428th District Court DATE: 3/12/15 Publish: NO TCCASE#: CR-12-0432



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Rodolfo Cisneros v. The State of STYLE: Texas CCA#: 

# L17'S &?fyr APPEt-L/i-MT^ Petition CCADisposition: FORDISCRETIONARYREVIEW INCCAIS: DATE: 

# f&ll)Se& JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH: 

## DATE: CSWv <l°i 'Z*/-T JUDGE: P&I /-/^rse* CT- f*f REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: • PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC RECORD
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 29, 2019 t0522

Order 

Clerk

May 29, 2019

158746

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158746

COA: 339389 

Kent CC: 16-011299-FC

GERONIMO LUCAS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 9, 2018 

judgment 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.

MARKMAN, J. (concurring).

I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. However, I write separately to, once 

again, “call to the attention of the Legislature what I believe may be the effective 

nullification of its mandatory minimum sentence for certain first-degree criminal sexual 

conduct (CSC-I) offenses set forth in MCL 750.520b(2)(b).” People v Keefe, 498 Mich 

962, 962 (2015) (MARKMAN, J., concurring). In the present case, defendant was alleged 

to have engaged in penetration with a person under 13 years of age. Prior to trial, 

defendant waived his right to a jury trial in exchange for the prosecutor’s promise not to 

pursue the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence that is required for a conviction under 

MCL 750.520b(2)(b). Defendant was subsequently convicted of two counts of CSC-I 

and was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of 10 to 30 years, in accordance with 

the agreement between defendant and the prosecutor. I continue to believe that as a result 

of prosecutor-defendant agreements such as this one, “there is no longer any real 

mandatory minimum sentence for the class of criminal sexual conduct offenses at issue—

those involving interactions between persons 17 years of age or older and those under the 

age of 13.” Keefe, 498 Mich at 965 (MARKMAN, J., concurring). Once again, the 

Legislature may or may not wish to “review MCL 750.520b(2)(b) to ascertain whether 

the outcome of this case is in accordance with its intentions.” Id.