alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Charlotte Lewis Bryant McCHORD, Respondent.

No. 96-SC-386-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Oct. 24, 1996.

OPINION AND ORDER

On November 16, 1996, the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee, the entity charged with oversight of lawyer discipline matters in that state, adopted a decision proposed by a reviewing committee in Grievance Complaint No. 94-0501 to reprimand the Respondent. The reviewing committee recommended the reprimand after holding a hearing at which Respondent appeared. The reviewing committee found by clear and .convincing evidence that during Respondent’s representation of a client in a workers’ compensation matter, the client’s son contacted Respondent on numerous occasions regarding the status of the case which commenced approximately one year after the client’s initial consultation with Respondent. Despite representations by Respondent that the case was in progress, the client’s case did not advance. Eventually, the client hired new counsel and Respondent admitted that the client’s file was lost. The reviewing committee further determined that the Respondent did not diligently advance the client’s case. Ultimately, the committee found that Respondent breached Rule 1.3 applicable to Connecticut attorneys, which is identical to Kentucky’s SCR 3.130-1.3, and provides that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

The Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee is empowered under Connecticut Practice Book § 27J(i) to act upon the proposed decision of the reviewing committee by imposing sanctions authorized by Connecticut Practice Book § 27 M.l. Section 27 M.l. specifically authorizes imposition of a reprimand and pursuant to § 27J(i), all discipline imposed under § 27 M.1 shall be public record. Thus, the reprimand imposed by the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee is equivalent to a public reprimand in Kentucky.

*156Pursuant to SCR 3.435, Respondent is subject to reciprocal discipline in Kentucky absent a showing within twenty (20) days from notice of the action that the imposition of identical discipline is unwarranted. Following the dictates of SCR 3.435, we gave the Respondent notice of the Kentucky Bar Association’s motion for reciprocal discipline on June 24, 1996. Because more than thirty (30) days has now expired and Respondent has failed to respond to this Court, we adopt the decision of the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee. Accordingly Charlotte Lewis Bryant McChord is hereby publicly reprimanded for her misconduct as set forth above.

All concur.

ENTERED: October 24,1996.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens

Chief Justice
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-2018-0025-7489

General Motors:

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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
1

Filed 9/10/24 P. v. Vargas CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANCISCO VARGAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

E083304

(Super.Ct.No. BPR2301497)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sylwia Luttrell, 

Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.). Dismissed.

Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

A trial court found that defendant and appellant Francisco Vargas violated his 

parole by using methamphetamine. The court ordered his parole revoked, and defendant 

now appeals. Counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. 

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).

On July 15, 2024, we notified defendant: (1) counsel filed a brief indicating no 

arguable issues had been identified; (2) as a case arising from an order denying 

postconviction relief, this court was not required to conduct an independent review of the 

record, but we could do so in our discretion; and (3) in accordance with the procedures 

set forth in Delgadillo, he had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief raising any 

argument he wanted this court to consider. We also notified defendant that if we did not 

receive a brief within that 30-day period, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. More 

than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We 

consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed. (Delgadillo, 

supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
3

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON

J.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5597

SGRE, 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

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-4765

ECM Industries 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Le Roy G. Bennett, Appellant.

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Aison, J.), rendered September 16, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree.

Defendant entered his plea of guilty with the understanding that his sentence would be a fine of $10,000, payable at the time of sentencing. County Court specifically advised defendant that if he intentionally failed to appear at sentencing on the scheduled date, he could be sentenced in absentia to a term of imprisonment of lVá to 4 years. Defendant was asked if he agreed to such an arrangement as a condition of the plea bargain and he answered in the affirmative. Defendant appeared for sentencing on August 17, 1988 and requested an adjournment until September 12, 1988. The court granted the request, but again stated that defendant’s failure to appear on the scheduled date could result in a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant failed to appear for sentencing on September 12, 1988 and his attorney requested a two-day adjournment, explaining that defendant had recently been involved in an automobile accident and was having minor difficulty obtaining sufficient cash for the fine. On September 14, 1988, defendant’s counsel appeared without defendant and again asked for a two-day adjournment, with a similar explanation. When defendant failed to appear on September 16, 1988, the court denied his attorney’s request for another adjournment and sentenced defendant in absentia to a prison term of *lVs*to 4 years. Defendant’s bail was revoked and a bench warrant for his arrest was issued.

Defendant was arrested and brought before the court on March 13, 1989. When questioned as to the reason for his failure to appear for sentencing as scheduled, defendant explained that he had been unable to obtain sufficient cash to pay the fine and was fearful that he would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. County Court refused to reconsider the previously imposed sentence.

Defendant claims on appeal that County Court erred in sentencing him in absentia, but there is ample evidence in the record that defendant’s failure to appear was deliberate and, therefore, he waived his right to be present *(see, People v*
      *826
      *Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436). Defendant was fully advised of the consequences of his failure to appear and he agreed to sentencing in absentia if his failure to appear was intentional. He was given several opportunities to appear or provide an adequate excuse for his absence. He did neither. The court made a sufficient inquiry into the surrounding circumstances to determine that defendant’s failure to appear was deliberate, and the court was justified in refusing to grant another adjournment.

Defendant has filed a *pro se*letter proclaiming his innocence, but such a claim was forfeited by his guilty plea. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00285

- CR

ALLEN BYRD v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 19FC

- 0513

- F

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

a ppeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 25, 2019
Exhibit 10.6


 


Director Compensation Summary


 


We currently pay our non-management directors
an annual retainer of $170,000 per year. 
We pay $70,000 of the retainer in cash and $100,000 of the retainer in
restricted stock to non-management directors who have not satisfied our share
ownership guidelines.  We pay $100,000 of
the retainer in cash and $70,000 of the retainer in restricted stock to
non-management directors who have satisfied our share ownership guidelines. Any
director may elect to receive up to 100 percent his annual retainer in
restricted stock.  Any director who has
satisfied our share ownership guidelines may also elect to receive up to
50 percent of the portion of the annual retainer that is not paid in cash
in the form of stock options rather than in the form of restricted stock.  Grants of restricted stock receive cash
dividends.  Restricted stock and stock
options vest on the day immediately prior to the first annual general meeting
of shareholders at which directors are elected following the grant of the stock
or option (with immediate vesting upon a change in control or death or
disability of the director).  Vested
options are exercisable for up to ten years after grant, but only while the
director is serving on the Board and for 30 days after leaving the Board (two
years after leaving if termination is because of retirement after five years of
Board service, death, or disability, and two years following a change in
control).


 


The Chairman of the Board receives an
additional $125,000 annual retainer, the Chairman of the Audit Committee
receives an additional $30,000 annual retainer and the Chairman of each of the
Compensation Committee, the Nominating and Governance Committee, the Finance
Committee and the Risk Oversight Committee receives an additional $10,000
annual retainer. Members of the Audit Committee, other than the chairman,
receive an additional $10,000 annual retainer and members, other than the
chairmen, of each of the Compensation Committee, the Nominating and Governance
Committee, the Finance Committee and the Risk Oversight Committee receive an
additional $5,000 annual retainer.  The
Company will generally not pay a fee for attendance at board or committee
meetings, though the Chairman of the Board has the discretion to pay attendance
fees of $2,000 for extraordinary or special meetings.


 


The Board of Directors has recommended that
each director own at least 25,000 common shares.  Common shares represented by stock units
previously granted to directors (i.e.,
units for which common shares will be received six months after termination of
the director’s service on the Board of Directors), vested restricted shares and
purchased shares will count toward that guideline.  A director must hold at least 25,000 shares
before the director may dispose of any shares acquired as compensation from
Assured Guaranty Ltd.  Once a director
has reached the share ownership guideline, the director must hold at least
25,000 shares so long as serving on the Board of Directors.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Notices 19623

SUMMARY: A meeting of the U.S.

Advisory Commission on Public

Diplomacy will be held on April 19 in

Room 600, 301 4th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. from 10:30 a.m.–12:00

p.m.

The Commission will hold a panel

discussion on the Middle East Peace

Process and Political Islam. The

panelists are Ms. Judith Miller, Fellow,

Twentieth Century Fund; Mr. Tom

Melia, National Democratic Institute;

and Mr. Kent Obee, Director, Office of

Near East and South Asian Affairs,

USIA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please call

Betty Hayes, (202) 619–4468, if you are

interested in attending the meeting.

Space is limited and entrance to the

building is controlled.

Rose Royal,

Management Analyst, Federal Register

Liaison.

[FR Doc. 95–9686 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Special Medical Advisory Group;

Notice of Meeting

The Department of Veterans Affairs

gives notice that a meeting of the

Special Medical Advisory Group,

authorized by Title 38, U.S.C., Section

7312, will be held at the Department of

Veterans Affairs, Room 930, 810

Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C., on May 10, 1995.

The meeting will convene at 8:15 a.m.

(EST) and adjourn at approximately 4:00

p.m. (EST), May 10. The meeting will be

open to the public up to the seating

capacity of the room. Those wishing to

attend should contact Susan Hall, Office

of the Deputy Under Secretary for

Health, at 202–273–5813, no later than

May 5, 1995.

Dated: April 6, 1995.

By Direction of the Secretary:

Heyward Bannister,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–9590 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–M

Veterans’ Advisory Committee on

Education; Meeting

The Department of Veterans Affairs

gives notice that a meeting of the

Veterans’ Advisory Committee on

Education, authorized by 38 U.S.C.

3692, will be held on May 4, from 12

p.m. to 5 p.m. and on May 5, from 1

p.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting will take

place at the American Association of

Collegiate Registrars and Admissions

Officers, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite

330, Washington, DC 20036–1171. The

purpose of the meeting will be to

discuss Veterans Affairs education

issues.

The meeting will be open to the

public up to the seating capacity of the

conference room. Due to the limited

seating capacity, it will be necessary for

those wishing to attend to contact Mrs.

Celia P. Dollarhide, Director, Education

Service, (phone 202–273–7132) prior to

April 21, 1995.

Interested persons may attend, appear

before, or file statements with the

Committee. Statements, if in written

form, may be filed before or within 10

days after the meeting. Oral statements

will be heard at 2 p.m. on May 4, 1995.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

By direction of the Secretary.

Heyward Bannister,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–9591 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 6, 2017

No. 04-16-00511-CR

Josef Dalen RAMOS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR3918

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED IN PART. 

Appellant’s brief is due on February 9, 2017. No further extensions will be granted, absent 

extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5645

Fluor Enterprises, 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

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 2812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-855]


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


United States International Trade Commission

[USITC SE-95-01A]

Emergency Notice of Correction of Time and Addition of an Agenda Item 
for the meeting of Wednesday, January 11, 1995

``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 60FR2427--dated 
January 9, 1995.

CHANGE OF TIME OF MEETING:

Original Time: January 11, 1995 at 2:30 p.m.
New Time: January 11, 1995 at 3:00 p.m.

AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA:

5. Outstanding action jackets:
    1. GC-94-113, Administrative orders, letters, and notice of 
proposed section 337 rulemaking
    2. GC-94-115, Advance notice of proposed section 337 rulemaking

    In conformity with 19 C.F.R. Sec. 201.37(a)(b), Commissioners 
Watson, Bragg, Crawford, Newquist, Rohr, and Nuzum determined that 
Commission business required the correction in the time of the meeting 
scheduled for January 11, 1995 at 2:30 p.m., to January 11, 1995 at 
3:00 p.m., and to amend the Agenda Item 5, and affirmed that no earlier 
announcement of the addition to the agenda was possible, and directed 
the issuance of this notice at the earliest practicable time.

    By order of the Commission:

    Issued: January 9, 1995.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-855 Filed 1-9-95; 3:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P