alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50419 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GABRIEL MOLINA-SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-99-CR-1561-1-H

-------------------- February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gabriel Molina-Santillan argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) was unconstitutionally applied at his sentencing because he received an enhanced sentence based on a prior conviction that was not alleged in his indictment, which deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial on all the elements of his offense. Molina also argues that the sentence imposed violated due process because it exceeded the maximum statutory penalty for the offense charged in the indictment.No. 00-50419 -2- Molina concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). He also acknowledges that he did not raise his arguments in the district court and, thus, review for plain error is appropriate. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 120 S.Ct. at 2361-62 & n.15; see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. Jan. 26, 2001)(No. 00-8299); United States v. Doggett , 230 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. Jan. 4, 2001) (No. 00-7819). As Molina’s arguments for appeal are foreclosed, he has failed to show that the district court committed error, plain or otherwise, in imposing sentence. Molina’s judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Daryll JACKSON, Appellant. Daryll JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 60360, 62239.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

July 13, 1993.

Emily N. Blood, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Aundreia R. Alexander, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANE and CRAHAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his convictions of second degree assault and armed criminal action. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evi-dentiary hearing.

An opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only. This memorandum sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5447 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5447

    To prohibit any transactions using Alipay in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2023

 Mr. Ogles (for himself, Mrs. Harshbarger, and Mr. Tiffany) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit any transactions using Alipay in the United States.

    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 ``No Alipay Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF ALIPAY.

    No financial transactions between AliPay (China) Internet 
Technology Company Limited (referred to in this Act as ``AliPay'') and 
a United States person are permitted, including the use of any 
application or payment processing services operated by Alipay.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) The term ``United States person'' means--
                    (A) a national of the United States;
                    (B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
                residence;
                    (C) an entity organized under the laws of the 
                United States or under the laws of any jurisdiction 
                within the United States (including a foreign branch of 
                such an entity); or
                    (D) an individual who is physically present in the 
                United States.
            (2) The term ``financial transaction'' means--
                    (A) a transaction which in any way or degree 
                affects interstate or foreign commerce--
                            (i) involving the movement of funds by wire 
                        or other means; or
                            (ii) involving one or more monetary 
                        instruments; or
                    (B) a transaction involving the use of a financial 
                institution which is engaged in, or the activities of 
                which affect, interstate or foreign commerce in any way 
                or degree.
                                 <all>
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00351-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.M., MINOR 

CHILD

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 442nd District 

Court

of Denton County (14-00945-393)

June 27, 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant M.M. (Dad) shall pay all of the costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18663-18664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8999]



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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended by Pub. L. 99-591; 
Information Collection Under Review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB)

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Information Collection Under Review by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB).

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

SUMMARY: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has sent to OMB the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35), as amended by Pub. L. 99-591. Requests for information, including 
copies of the information collection proposed and supporting 
documentation, should be directed to the Agency Clearance Officer whose 
name, address, and telephone number appear below. Questions or comments 
should be made within 30 days directly to the Agency Clearance Officer 
and also to the Desk Officer for the Tennessee Valley Authority, Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, D.C. 20503; Telephone: (202)/395-3084.

Agency Clearance Officer: Mark R. Winter, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
1101 Market Street (BR 6B), Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801; (615)/751-
2523. [[Page 18664]] 
Type of Request: Regular submission.
Title of Information Collection: Power Distributors Annual Report to 
TVA.
Type of Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit, small 
businesses or organizations.
Small Businesses or Organizations Affected: Yes.
Federal Budget Functional Category Code: 271.
Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 320.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3072.
Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response: 9.6.
Need For and Use of Information: This information collection supplies 
TVA with financial and accounting information to help ensure that 
electric power produced by TVA is sold to consumers at rates which are 
as low as feasible.
William S. Moore,
Senior Manager, Administrative and Transportation Services.
[FR Doc. 95-8999 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 23, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00352

- CR

William Roy TATE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court

, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 0335

- CR

- B

Honorable William D. Old III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant's Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The appellant's brief is due on or before October 28, 2020. No further extension s absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of September, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, 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-2018-0025-5647

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

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 86, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29590-29591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Research Projects 
Grants.
    Date: June 10, 2021.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Elena Sanovich, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7351, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-
594-8886, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f380929d9c859a909b96b39e929a9fdd9d9a9bdd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="582b3936372e313b303d183539313476363130763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes,

[[Page 29591]]

Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 26, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11518 Filed 6-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1471

DAN K. DUNN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-2213-1-6BC) Submitted: December 30, 1999 Decided: February 25, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Miley, North Augusta, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan P. Pearson, James H. Fowles, III, ELLZEY & BROOKS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Dan K. Dunn appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in his former employer's favor in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the joint appendices, and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dunn v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. , No. CA-97- 2213-1-6BC (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    THIS
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of
January 25, 2010 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Robert Aldrich (“Aldrich”
or the “Executive”) and American Defense Systems, Inc. (“ADSI” or the
“Company”).

    


    WHEREAS,
ADSI and Aldrich have previously entered into an employment agreement dated
August 1, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); and

    


    WHEREAS,
ADSI and Aldrich desire to amend the Employment Agreement between the
parties.

    


    NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, ADSI
and Aldrich hereby agree as follows:

    


    1.           Section
3.4 of the Employment Agreement (Stock), is hereby amended and restated as
follows:

    


    Stock
Options.  Subject to
approval by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) and its Compensation
Committee (“Committee”), as further compensation for Executive’s services
hereunder, the Company shall grant to Executive, effective as of the date of the
Amendment, a nonqualified option to purchase 100,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock, the terms of which shall be set forth in a stock option agreement
issued pursuant to, and subject to, the terms of the Company’s 2007 Incentive
Compensation Plan (as amended from time to time, the “Plan”).  The
option will become exercisable according to a vesting schedule pursuant to which
forty percent (40%) of the option shall be immediately vested as of the option
grant date and twenty percent (20%) of the option shall vest annually commencing
on the first one-year anniversary of the option grant date.  The
initial per share exercise price of the option shall equal the fair market value
of a share of the Company’s common stock on the date of the grant, as determined
by the Committee in accordance with terms of the Plan.

     

    2.           Confirmation
of the Employment Agreement.  Except as amended hereby, all of the
terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain and continue in full force and
effect and are hereby confirmed in all respects, and all references to the
Employment Agreement and the Amendment To Employment Agreement shall be deemed
to refer to the Employment Agreement as amended hereby.

     

    [THE
REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the
date set forth above.

     

    
      
        	 	American
      Defense Systems, Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Anthony
      Piscitelli	 
	 	 	Name:  Anthony
      Piscitelli	 
	 	 	Title:   
      CEO	 
	 	 	 	 


      

      
        
          	 	 	 	 
	
                   

                	
                  By:
      

                	/s/ Robert
      Aldrich	 
	 	 	Robert
      Aldrich
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**

|   | (1) | the                Report fully 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |   |   |                                                                                                                               |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      |   |   | /s/                Daniel F. Collins                                                                                               |
|                                      |   |   | Daniel                F. Collins, President                and Chief Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer) |
|                                 |   |   |                                                                                                                               |
| Date: May              17, 2007 |   |   |                                                                                                                               |
|                                 |   |   |                                                                                                                               |
|                                 |   |   | /s/                Margaret R. Coughlin                                                                                            |
|                                 |   |   | Margaret                R. Coughlin, Secretary(Principal                Financial Officer)                                         |

----
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Juma Technology, Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony Fernandez, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1) The
Report fully 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.




/s/ Anthony
  FernandezAnthony
      Fernandez
                Chief
      Financial Officer





November  10,
2010
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-2018-0025-7219

MAHLE Behr USA, 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0317

TOWN OF KEVIN,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA

REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

file Appellant’s reply brief and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is given an extension of 

time until March 15, 2024, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s 

reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 13 2024

02/13/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0317