alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16661-16662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7943]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary


Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Group; Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is 
announcing a public meeting of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public 
Advisory Group.

DATES: April 20-21, 1995, at 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: First floor conference room, 645 ``G'' Street, Anchorage, 
Alaska.

[[Page 16662]] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Mutter, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental 
Policy and Compliance, 1689 ``C'' Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska, 
(907) 271-5011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Public Advisory Group was created by 
Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree 
entered into the United States of America and the State of Alaska on 
August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for 
the District of Alaska in settlement of United States of America v. 
State of Alaska, Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The agenda will include 
the review of small-parcel habitat protection efforts and a discussion 
of long-range restoration planning.

    Dated: March 27, 1995.
Willie R. Taylor,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 95-7943 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RG-M
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HILARIO GUZMAN TRUJILLO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-71423

Agency No. A029-146-316

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2013** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Hilario Guzman Trujillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § §

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for substantial evidence

FILED

JAN 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-71423

the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.

2009). We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s determination that an alien

was convicted of a particularly serious crime. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383

(9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ correctly determined that Guzman Trujillo’s conviction under

California Penal Code § 288(a) is an aggravated felony that renders him ineligible

for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(c)(2)(D) (alien who files asylum application

prior to April 1, 1997, is ineligible if convicted of an aggravated felony); United

States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1999) (section 288(a) is

categorically an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A)).

The IJ did not abuse her discretion when she determined that Guzman

Trujillo’s conviction is a particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible for

withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The record reflects

that Guzman Trujillo was sentenced to state prison for engaging in significant

sexual contact with a child of eight over a period of months. See Arbid, 700 F.3d

379 at 384 (particularly serious crime determinations are informed by a series of

factors, including the nature and underlying facts of the conviction, and the type of

sentence imposed).
3 06-71423

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Guzman Trujillo

did not establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned

to Guatemala. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 9, 2018

No. 04-18-00801-CR

Helder Jesus Lopez CRISTOMO,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR10362W

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a 

certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record 

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be 

dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant 

causes an amended trial court certification to be filed by December 7, 2018, showing appellant 

has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 

610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, 

no pet.). All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the 

certification issue.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.3.5

                         AMENDMENT #4 TO CONTRACT 00117

                      ELECTRONIC LOTTERY TICKET DISPENSERS

1.    Contract 00117 between the Missouri Lottery and On-Point Technology
      Systems, Inc shall hereby be amended to establish the following prices for
      relocation of instant ticket vending machines:

          $ 125 for each relocation of 30 miles or less

          $ 150 for each relocation of more than 30 miles

2.    All other terms and conditions of the contract shall remain in effect,
      except as modified by and other agreements and/or amendments.


/s/ Brian J. Roberts                        12/2/96
-------------------------------------       ---------------
Contractor's Authorized Signature           Date


/s/ James R. Scroggins                      12/9/96
-------------------------------------       ---------------
Missouri Lottery Authorized Signature       Date
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00545-CV

NO. 09-13-00546-CV

NO. 09-13-00547-CV

NO. 09-13-00548-CV

____________________

TOMMIE ALLEN RINGO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 1A District Court 

Jasper County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 33434, 33437, 33440, and 33441 

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

The trial court signed expunction orders in four criminal cases on September 

27, 2013. Tommie Allen Ringo filed notices of appeal on December 2, 2013. In 

motions filed with the trial court, Ringo claims that he received notice or actual 

knowledge of the signing more than twenty days after the orders were signed. See 

Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a.4. The documents filed with the appeal do not show whether 
2

the trial court considered and ruled on the motions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a.5; see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 4.2(c). 

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeals are hereby abated and the cases 

are remanded to the trial court for consideration of the appellant’s motions to 

establish the application of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a.4. A supplemental 

clerk’s record that includes the trial court’s rulings and a supplemental reporter’s 

record of any hearing conducted by the trial court shall be filed with the Court of 

Appeals on or before March 10, 2014.

ORDER ENTERED February 6, 2014.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5095

A.W. Chesterton Company:

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

General Counsel
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


      We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
UNION BANKSHARES, LTD. on Form S-8 relating to the Company's Equity Incentive
Plan, the Option Bonus Plan, the Equity Compensation Plan for Nonemployee
Directors and the Nonemployee Directors' Stock Option Plan of our report dated
January 16, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of UNION
BANKSHARES, LTD. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then
ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form
10-KSB of UNION BANKSHARES, LTD.


/s/ BAIRD, KURTZ & DOBSON

BAIRD, KURTZ & DOBSON



March 27, 1998
NUMBER 13-20-00243-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

CITY OF PORT ARANSAS, TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

THE PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI AUTHORITY OF

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, AND SAM ESQUIVAL,

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF DIRECTOR OF

REAL ESTATE SERVICES OF THE PORT 

OF CORPUS CHRISTI AUTHORITY OF

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS Appellees.

On appeal from the 117th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s agreed motion to dismiss the appeal 

on grounds that the parties have reached an agreement as to the underlying dispute in 
2

the lawsuit from which this appeal arises. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the 

appeal. 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s agreed motion 

to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1. Appellant’s agreed motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) (“Absent 

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.”). Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed the

24th day of September, 2020.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5104 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5104

 To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to reauthorize that Act, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2023

  Mr. Edwards (for himself, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Williams of New York, Ms. 
  Schrier, Mr. Newhouse, and Mr. Moolenaar) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to reauthorize that Act, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Dam Safety Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.

    Section 14 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j) 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``2023'' and 
        inserting ``2028'';
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
        ``2028'';
            (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
        ``2028'';
            (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
        ``2028'';
            (5) in subsection (e), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
        ``2028''; and
            (6) in subsection (f), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
        ``2028''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7503]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
[T.D. 95-24]


Revocation of Customs Broker License

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: General notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on March 1, 1995, the Secretary of 
the Treasury, pursuant to Section 641, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(19 U.S.C. 1641), and Part 111.45(a) of the Customs Regulations, as 
amended (19 CFR 111.45(a)), ordered the revocation of the license (No. 
5954) issued to George Louis-Ferdinand in the New York Customs Region.


    Dated: March 21, 1995.
Philip Metzger,
Director, Trade Compliance Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7503 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-M
ex4-1.htm


Exhibit 4.1


 


QUEPASA CORPORATION



AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND


RESTATED 2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This Amendment to the Amended and Restated 2006 Stock Incentive Plan amends Section 5.1 of the plan to increase the authorized shares available for grant by 2,000,000 shares.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4724

Scosche Industries, 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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

General Counsel
**Exhibit      21**

**SUBSIDIARIES      OF THE REGISTRANT**

| Subsidiary                                         |   | Jurisdiction                of Organization |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                               |   |                                        |
| RW                Monterey, Inc.                   |   | California                                  |
|                                               |   |                                        |
| Sunnyside                Cogeneration Partners, LP |   | California                                  |
|                                               |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                Pump Services Corporation |   | California                                  |
|                                               |   |                                        |
| Pump                Services Company, L.P.         |   | California                                  |
|                                               |   |                                        |
|                                               |   |                                        |
|                                               |   |                                        |

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3225

ADH Guardian USA LLC: 

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

_5-30-2019.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
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-2018-0025-3386

American Zettler, 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 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