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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 01-20340 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERNESTO SANCHEZ-GUITERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-762-1

-------------------- December 27, 2001 Before JOLLY, DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ernesto Sanchez-Guiterrez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sanchez has been provided a copy of counsel’s brief and motion but has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s Anders brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1082 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1082

 To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the number of acres 
         authorized for inclusion in the conservation reserve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2001

Mr. Peterson of Minnesota (for himself, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
  Baldacci, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. 
Boswell, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Costello, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. 
Deal of Georgia, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Dingell, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. English, 
   Mr. Evans, Mr. Frost, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. 
Hinchey, Mr. Holden, Mr. Isakson, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, 
 Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Luther, Mr. Markey, Ms. McCollum, Mr. George Miller of 
     California, Mr. Ney, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Phelps, Mr. 
Pickering, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shows, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Thompson 
of California, Mr. Thune, Mr. Towns, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Weldon 
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Condit, 
and Mr. John) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the number of acres 
         authorized for inclusion in the conservation reserve.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT IN CONSERVATION 
              RESERVE.

    Section 1231(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
3831(d)) is amended by striking ``36,400,000 acres'' and inserting 
``45,000,000 acres''.
                                 <all>
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1132

To ensure the timely payment of benefits to eligible persons under the

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, and Mr.

MATHESON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

A BILL

To ensure the timely payment of benefits to eligible persons

under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42

U.S.C. 2210 note).

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

3 SECTION 1. RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST

4 FUND.

5 (a) APPROPRIATIONS.—There are appropriated, out

6 of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,

7 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001,

8 $84,000,000 to the Radiation Exposure Compensation

9 Trust Fund to remain available until expended for the
2

•HR 1132 IH

1 purpose of making payments to eligible beneficiaries under

2 the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C.

3 2210 note).

4 (b) EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT.—The entire amount

5 made available under subsection (a)—

6 (1) shall be available only to the extent that the

7 President submits to Congress an official budget re8 quest for up to $84,000,000 that includes designa9 tion of the entire amount of the request as an emer10 gency requirement for the purposes of the Balanced

11 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

12 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.); and

13 (2) is designated by Congress as an emergency

14 requirement under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Bal15 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

16 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).

Æ
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1268

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include wireless telecommunications equipment in the definition of qualified technological equipment

for purposes of determining the depreciation treatment of such equipment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

Mr. CRANE (for himself, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of

Texas, Ms. DUNN, and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include

wireless telecommunications equipment in the definition

of qualified technological equipment for purposes of determining the depreciation treatment of such equipment.

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

3 SECTION 1. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIP4 MENT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section

6 168(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining

7 qualified technological equipment) is amended by striking
2

•HR 1268 IH

1 ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at

2 the end of clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by insert3 ing after clause (iii) the following new clause:

4 ‘‘(iv) any wireless telecommunications

5 equipment.’’

6 (b) WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIP7 MENT.—Section 168(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code

8 of 1986 is amended by inserting after subparagraph (C)

9 the following new subparagraph:

10 ‘‘(D) WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

11 EQUIPMENT.—For purposes of this paragraph,

12 the term ‘wireless telecommunications equip13 ment’ means all equipment used in the trans14 mission, reception, coordination, or switching of

15 wireless telecommunications service. For this

16 purpose, ‘wireless telecommunications service’

17 includes any commercial mobile radio service as

18 defined in title 47 of the Code of Federal Regu19 lations.’’

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

21 this section shall apply to property placed in service on

22 or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Case 1:06-mc-00001-JD Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-mc-00001-JD Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2
182 La. 841

#### ROSS v. BOARD OF LEVEE COM’RS OF NINETEENTH LOUISIANA LEVEE DIST.

No. 33236.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1935.

Harry Fuller, of Winnfield, and Vinson M. Mouser, of Columbia, for appellant.

Stephens & Gahagan, of Natchitoches, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This case was before this court in 1934. There is .an accurate statement of the case in the opinion we handed down at that time, which is reported in 180 La. 227, 156 So. 230. In that opinion all of the issues presented to the court were decided except one, viz.: Whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to recover the assessed value of 140.1 acres of land that was left between the levee and the river by the removal of the levee some distance back of its original location. With respect to that issue, the case was remanded to the lower court for the purpose of enabling the board of levee commissioners to introduce proof that the “land between the levee and the river was not ‘destroyed’ or rendered worthless by the building of the levee behind it.”

This issue was tried in the lower court and the same judgment was" rendered thereon as was rendered on the original trial. It is from this judgment that the defendant has appealed.

By agreement of counsel, the testimony taken on the former trial of the case is made a part of this record. There is, therefore, considerable testimony in the record, expert and otherwise. We find, however, that so far from the land outside the levee having been destroyed by the removal of the levee, excellent' crops of cotton and corn were grown upon a considerable part of that land during the year 1934, and the balance of the land was profitably used as pasture for cattle and work animals. This is a far cry from destruction for levee purposes within the meaning of the constitutional provision. - It is true that in years of abnormal flood stages of Red river the land is inundated, and sometimes the recession of the water leaves an injurious silt or sand deposit on a part of *640the land, but it is shown that a recurring flood stage of the river washes the soil and, by silt deposit, restores the fertility of the land.

These are facts, of such common knowledge in this state that, even without direct proof of them, the court is justified in taking judicial notice of the fact.

Our review of the evidence leaves no doubt in our minds that no part of the 140.1 acres of land, for which the plaintiff is seeking to recover from the defendant the assessed value thereof, is land which was destroyed for levee purposes, within the intendment of the Constitution and laws of this state.

For these reasons, the judgment appealed from is avoided and reversed, in so far as the 140.1 acres of land lying outside the levee is concerned, but in all other respects it is affirmed. The costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellee.
Order filed December 2, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 01019

- CV

____________ NEWELL M. EVANS , Appellant

V.

THEODORE P. FULLER , Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11

- DCV

- 187877



### ORDER
Appellant is proceeding as indigent. The court reporter responsible for preparing the record has informed the court that appellant has not designated the portions of the record he wants prepared

. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b)

. Accordingly, appellant is ORDERED to designate the reporter’s record in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b) and provide proof of his designation to this court by Dece mber 9, 2015 . If appellant fails to do so, we may consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter's record. See Tex. App.P. 37.3(c).

PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Greg Schillinger

v. Civil No. 05-cv-459-JD

Northern NH Correctional Facility, et al.

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $4.00 is due no later than March

8, 2006. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s income

credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $250.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 8, 2006

cc: Greg Schillinger, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:05-cv-00459-JD Document 18 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 127

To limit the total number of political appointees in the executive branch

of the Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. LUTHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To limit the total number of political appointees in the

executive branch of the Government.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF POLITICAL AP4 POINTEES.

5 (a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the

6 term ‘‘political appointee’’ means any individual who—

7 (1) is employed in a position listed in sections

8 5312 through 5316 of title 5, United States Code

9 (relating to the Executive Schedule);
2

•HR 127 IH

1 (2) is a limited term appointee, limited emer2 gency appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Sen3 ior Executive Service, as defined under section

4 3132(a) (5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States

5 Code, respectively; or

6 (3) is employed in a position in the executive

7 branch of the Government under schedule C of sub8 part C of part 213 of title 5 of the Code of Federal

9 Regulations.

10 (b) LIMITATION.—The President shall ensure that

11 the number of political appointees in the executive branch

12 of the Government shall not, at any time after September

13 30, 2002, exceed a total of 2,000 (determined on a full14 time equivalent basis).

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1107 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1107

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow married individuals 
who are legally separated and living apart to exclude from gross income 
    the income from United States savings bonds used to pay higher 
                      education tuition and fees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow married individuals 
who are legally separated and living apart to exclude from gross income 
    the income from United States savings bonds used to pay higher 
                      education tuition and fees.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MARRIED INDIVIDUALS FILING SEPARATE RETURNS ALLOWED 
              TO EXCLUDE INCOME FROM UNITED STATES SAVINGS BONDS USED 
              TO PAY HIGHER EDUCATION TUITION AND FEES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 135 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for exclusion of income 
from United States savings bonds used to pay higher education tuition 
and fees) is amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) 
and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Certain married individuals living apart.--For 
        purposes of this section, an individual shall not be considered 
        as married in a taxable year if such individual--
                    ``(A) is married and files a separate return for 
                such taxable year,
                    ``(B) as of the close of such taxable year, is 
                legally separated from the individual's spouse, and
                    ``(C) was not a member of the same household as the 
                individual's spouse at any time during the taxable 
                year.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-8-01-SM

John Carney

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 19) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than March 1, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:06-cr-00008-SM Document 20 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: May 21, 2007 at 4:00 PM 

Jury Selection: June 5, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

February 23, 2007 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Mark Irish, Esq.

 Robert Rabuck, Esq.

 John Gillen, Esq.

 John Goggin, Esq.

 Keith Higgins, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00008-SM Document 20 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2
exv10w9



 






Exhibit 10.9




     Each non-employee member of Golden Telecom’s Board of Directors is
entitled to receive an annual retainer fee of $15,000. In addition, each
non-employee member of the Board of Directors is entitled to receive a fee of
$1,000 for each Board meeting attended in person and a fee of $500 for each
Board meeting attended by telephone. Non-employee members are entitled to
receive a fee of $750 for each Board committee meeting attended in person, a fee
of $500 for each Board committee meeting attended by telephone and a fee of $500
for each Unanimous Written Consent in Lieu of Meeting adopted by the Board.
However, Board committee fees are not paid if the meeting is held on the same
day as a Board meeting. In accordance with the Golden Telecom 1999 Equity
Participation Plan, non-employee directors are also entitled to receive 10,000
stock options upon their initial appointment and 2,500 stock options for each
subsequent year of service.



     The Chair of the Audit Committee is entitled to receive additional
annual compensation of $15,000 for serving as Chair of the Audit Committee.



     Each of the Directors waived his right to receive stock options in 2004
with the exception of Mr. North and Mr. Herman. Mr. Dunster also waived his
rights to all forms of Director compensation in 2004, which is in line with the
policy of his employer, Capital International Research, Inc.



     All directors who are also Golden Telecom employees have waived their
rights to all forms of director compensation for 2004, including rights to stock
options, which is in line with Company policy.
jfouttl) Court of

i§>an Sntomo,

July 30,2014

No.04-13-00642-CV

Rey Rojas-Silva,

Appellant

v.

State of Texas for the Protection of Lorena Rojas,

Appellee

Trial Court Case No. 2013-CI-06892

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on September 9, 2014, to the following panel:

Chief Justice Stone, Justice Angelini, and Justice Martinez. All parties will be notified of the

Court's decision in this appeal in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 48.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on July 30,2014.

^therineyStone, ChieTJustice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and

court on this July 30, 2014.

fixed the seal o/the said
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00288

- CV
Castine McIlhargey and Jody McIntyre, Individually, and Derivatively on Behalf of A+ Pro Recovery and Towing, LLC v. Erik M. Hager, Jason Rios, Eduardo Pena, Joanna Pena, and South Padre Towing and Recov ery, LLC
On Appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- DCL

- 03294

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. No costs are assesse d , as appellants filed

a ffidavits of inability to pay costs. We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 28, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-220-01-SM

Jean Oriol

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 24) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the December 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a

Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than September 20, 2006. On the filing of such

waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00220-SM Document 25 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

 NO FURTHER CONTINUANCES ABSENT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Final Pretrial Conference: November 27, 2006 at 3:30 PM

Jury Selection: December 5, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

September 12, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Terry Ollila, Esq.

 Paul Garrity, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00220-SM Document 25 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TAMMI LARSEN, in her individual capacity, 

and as natural parent and legal guardian of 

Ryan Larsen, a minor child;

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PAPILLION LA VISTA COMMUNITY 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, and JANE DOES 1-3, 

individually, and in their official capacities;

Defendants.

8:23CV190

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Memorandum and Order entered on this date, this case is 

dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated this 1st day of November, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00190-JFB-MDN Doc # 11 Filed: 11/01/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 97