alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50590 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DONNIE THOMPSON

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:04

- CR

- 86

- 27

Before SOUTHWICK , COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Donnie Thompson has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Thompson h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

r elevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 28, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50590 Document: 00515326801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2020No. 19

- 50590

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further res ponsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-50590 Document: 00515326801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
EXHIBIT 3(i)(c)

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

TO THE AMENDED ARTICLES
OF INCORPORATION OF

JURE HOLDINGS, INC.

Pursuant to the provisions of Title
XXXVI, Chapter 607.1006 of the Florida Statutes, the undersigned corporation, Jure
Holdings, Inc. adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its Amended Articles of
Incorporation.

The following amendment to the
Amended Articles of Incorporation dated April 14, 2002 was adopted unanimously by the
board of directors and by a majority of the stockholders of the corporation on September
19, 2003.

This amendment deletes Article I of
the Amended Articles of Incorporation in its entirety, providing for a new Article I, as
set forth below.

ARTICLE I

NAME

The name of this corporation is
OPENLIMIT, INC.

The number of shares of the
corporation outstanding at the time this amendment to the corporations Amended
Articles of Incorporation was adopted was 48,017,084 and the number of shares entitled to
vote thereon was 48,017,084. The number of shares voted for such amendment was 24,637,000.
The number of votes cast for the amendment by the stockholders holding a majority of the
shares entitled to vote thereon was sufficient for approval of same.

The name change to OPENLIMIT, INC.
will be effective on November 7, 2003 subsequent to the filing of this amendment to the
Amended Articles of Incorporation of Jure Holdings, Inc. with the Florida Secretary of
State.

Dated September 19, 2003

/s/ Henry Dattler

Henry DattlerPresident
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
 
                        Consent of Independent Auditors
                        -------------------------------



The Board of Directors
SMT Health Services Inc.:



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-44329) on Form S-3, registration statement (No. 33-61600) on Form S-8,
registration statement (No. 33-61602) on Form S-8, registration statement (No.
33-86920) on Form S-3, and registration statement (No. 33-80571) on Form S-3 of
SMT Health Services Inc. of our report dated January 31, 1997, except as to Note
18 which is as of March 4, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
SMT Health Services Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and
the related consolidated statements of earnings, changes in stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1996, and the related schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of SMT Health Services Inc.



Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 20, 1997
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2215

General Tools:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
**EXHIBIT 10.61**

**DESCRIPTION OF FISCAL EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN**

TheCompany maintains an executive incentive plan that is a cash incentive program designed to motivate participants to achieve the Company’s overall corporate goals and their individual employee objectives, and to reward them for theirachievements when those objectives are met. All of the Company’s executive officers are eligible to participate in the executive incentive plan. The annual cash incentive targets are determined as a percentage of base salary for each of theexecutive officers. 

For the year ending December 31, 2009, the initial target percentage for the Chief Executive Officer(“CEO”) was established as 40% of base salary, and for all other executive officers at 30% of base salary. For Fiscal 2010, the target percentages for the CEO was established at 50%, and for all other executive officers at 35%. 

Cash incentives will be earned and paid pursuant to our executive incentive plan only if the Company achieves corporate objectivesestablished by the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors. No separate individual objectives are established for the CEO, however, the CEO establishes individual objectives, in addition to these corporate objectives, in consultation withthe Compensation Committee, against which performance of the other executive officers is evaluated. Executive officers, including the CEO, may earn up to a maximum 150% of their individual cash incentive target depending upon the CompensationCommittee’s assessment of performance in relation to their predetermined objectives and subject to adjustment for overall performance assessment. The CEO’s performance assessment by the Compensation Committee is subject to the review,evaluation and approval by the non-management members of the full Board of Directors.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7320]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Appellate Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure will 
hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation and will commence each day at 8:30 a.m.

DATES: April 17-18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Huntington Hotel, 1401 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, 
California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington D.C. 20544, telephone (202) 273-1820.

    Dated: March 21, 1995.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 95-7320 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6013

ALIVE MICHAEL ANDERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ROBEY LEE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-00-657)

Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 6, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alive Michael Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alive Michael Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Lee, No. CA00-657 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 2001). 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-683]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Determination to Establish the Advisory Committee on External 
Regulation of Department of Energy Nuclear Safety

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), 
and Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 101-6, Final Rule on 
Federal Advisory Committee Management, I hereby certify the Advisory 
Committee on External Regulation of DOE Nuclear Safety is necessary and 
in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties 
imposed on the Department of Energy by law. This determination follows 
consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat of the General 
Services Administration, pursuant to 41 CFR subpart 101-6.10.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Energy, 
the White House Office of Environmental Policy and the Office of 
Management and Budget with advice, information, and recommendations on 
whether and how new and existing Department of Energy facilities and 
operations, except those operations covered under Executive Order 
12344, might be externally regulated to improve nuclear safety. The 
Committee will provide an organized forum for a diverse set of affected 
Federal agency representatives and non-Federal experts and stakeholders 
to conduct an in-depth assessment of the technical, regulatory, 
institutional, and resource issues.
    Committee members will be chosen to ensure an appropriately 
balanced membership to bring into account a diversity of viewpoints, 
including representatives from States and tribal governments, national 
and local environment, safety, and health organizations, labor unions, 
Department of Energy operating contractors, affected Federal agencies, 
and others who may significantly contribute to the deliberations of the 
committee. All meetings of this Committee will be noticed ahead of time 
in the Federal Register.
    Further information regarding this Advisory Committee may be 
obtained from Tom Isaacs, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on 
External Regulation of Department of Energy Nuclear Safety, 1726 M 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20006 (telephone: 202-254-3826).

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 6, 1995.
JoAnne Whitman,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-683 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2565

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### STATE v. WILLIE LITTLE, Alias JAMES HARRINGTON, Alias CHICKEN.

(Filed 9 April, 1947.)

Criminal Law § 80b (4)—

Where defendant gives notice of appeal but takes no action to perfect the appeal, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss, made after expiration of time for perfecting the appeal and any extensions thereof, will be allowed, but in a capital case this will be done only after an inspection of the record proper fails to disclose error.

Appeal by defendant from *Grady, Emergency Judge,*at December Criminal Term, 1946, of Wake.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

*No coimsel contra.*

Per Curiam:

Tbe defendant was convicted at December Criminal Term, 1946, of tbe Superior Court of Wake County of tbe crime of rape upon Mrs. Fletcher Book, and sentence of death was pronounced upon him in accordance with tbe law. Tbe defendant gave notice of appeal to tbe Supreme Court but no case on appeal has been docketed in this Court and tbe Assistant Clerk of tbe Court of Wake County has certified that no case on appeal bas been filed at tbe office of said Clerk. Tbe time agreed upon by counsel for perfecting tbe appeal, and fixed by tbe Court, and any extension of time which may have been granted, has expired; and tbe Assistant Clerk aforesaid certifies that counsel for tbe defendant bas informed her that be does not intend to perfect tbe appeal.

Whereupon, tbe Attorney-General bas caused tbe record proper to be filed in this Court and moves that tbe case and record be docketed and tbe appeal dismissed under Rule 17 of the Rules of Practice of the Court.

We have carefully examined tbe record filed in' this case and find no error therein. For tbe causes stated tbe motion of the Attorney-General is allowed, tbe appeal is dismissed, and tbe judgment of tbe lower court is affirmed. *S.*v. *Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455; *S. v. Johnson,*205 N. C., 610, 172 S. E., 219; *S. v. Goldston,*201 N. C., 89, 158 S. E., 926; *S. v. Hamlet,*206 N. C., 568, 174 S. E., 451.

Appeal dismissed; judgment affirmed.
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
 Virus and Prion Research: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Ames, Iowa National Animal Disease Center Virus and Prion Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.Subjects of Investigation
                            Beef cattle, live animal
                                Dairy cattle, live animal
                                Sheep, live animal
                                Swine, live animal


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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2756

Valeo North America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30176 Conference Calendar

__________________ MICHAEL W. BURGE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus A.J. DUNN, Major, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-1020

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael W. Burge's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of the dismissal of his civil rights suit is DENIED because the appeal does not present a nonfrivolous legal issue. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Burge does not seek monetary damages and his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot because they relate toNo. 95-30176 -2- a unit where he is no longer confined. See Rocky v. King , 900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1990). The appeal, which is frivolous, is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
<PAGE>


                                                                   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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2004, of Synagro Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
C. Boucher, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company and that the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                           /s/ Robert C. Boucher, Jr.
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Robert C. Boucher, Jr.
                                           Chief Executive Officer and Director
                                           March 21, 2005