alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 23, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60351

Summary Calendar

FARIBA KEIVANI,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A95 534 120

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fariba Keivani, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions this

court for review of the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. Keivani concedes that she previously filed

a motion to reopen and that her instant motion was filed more

than 90 days after the BIA completed its administrative review,

contrary to the rules in 8 U.S.C. § 1003.2(c)(2). She contends,

however, that she is not subject to these rules because her

conversion to Christianity resulted in changed country conditions

in Iran. The BIA rejected this argument and denied Keivani’s
No. 06-60351

-2-

motion to reopen, reasoning that an individual’s religious

conversion did not constitute a change in a country’s conditions.

An alien is not bound by number or timing requirements for

filing a motion to reopen if her request for relief “is based on

changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality

or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such

evidence is material and was not available and would not have

been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Evidence

presented by Keivani establishes that any policy of torturing or

persecuting Christians in Iran preceded her initial hearing

before the BIA. The fact that Keivani’s conversion made this

fact more relevant to her case does not establish a “changed

country condition,” as required by § 1229a. The BIA did not

abuse its discretion in denying Keivani’s motion to reopen. See

Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 2006).

Keivani also argues that the BIA’s failure to consider her

requests for nondiscretionary relief, in the forms of withholding

of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture,

constituted a denial of due process. Because Keivani failed to

raise this claim before the BIA, and because the BIA could have

corrected any due process problem by granting the motion to

reopen, the claim is unexhausted and this court is barred from

considering it. Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.

2004); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Keivani’s petition for review is DENIED.
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC15

- 865

____________ INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE , NO. 14
- 482

RE: VICTORIA L. GRIFFIN. [June 18, 2015]
PER CURIAM. We have for review a stipulation between the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) and Judge Victoria L. Griffin, as well as the JQC’s findings
and recommendatio n that Judge Griffin be public ly reprimanded for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const. “[A]t the inception of he r judicial campaign, Judge Griffin failed to follow Florida law when she opened her campaign account, and lent money to her campaign prior to filing the necessary qualification paperwork with the qualifying officer.” Judge Griffin admits that her conduct violated portions of Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes and Canons 1, 2(A), 7(A)(3)(a), and 7(E) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Further, Judge Griffin accepts full responsibility and acknowledges that the conduct should not have occurred. W e accept th e- 2

-

stipulation and approve the JQC’s findings and recommended sanction of a public reprimand

. Accordingly, we hereby command Judge Griffin to appear before this Court at a time to be established by the Clerk of this Court. It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED. Original Proceeding

– Judicial Qualifications Commission Ricardo Morales, III, Chair, and Alexander John Williams, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, for Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner Judge Victoria L. Griffin , pro s e, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Vero Beach, Florida,
for Respondent
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                          48,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  299,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,000
<INVENTORY>                                    614,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               976,700
<PP&E>                                       1,071,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 753,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,015,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          948,400
<BONDS>                                        605,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     71,700
<COMMON>                                       255,100
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,079,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,015,300
<SALES>                                      1,278,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,278,600
<CGS>                                        1,256,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,256,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (5,100)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (187,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (189,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,600)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (191,900)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Air Force’s first Energy Assurance Lease signed at Tyndall AFBPublished Nov. 9, 2021
                        
                        
                        Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-LACKLAND, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The Department of the Air Force and Florida Power and Light Gulf Power Company (GPC), signed DAF’s first Energy Assurance Lease Oct. 13 for the construction of a solar microgrid system with an estimated 150 kilowatt photovoltaic solar array and 450 kW, 2.5 hour battery energy storage system at**Tyndall Air Force Base**, Florida.

Under the terms of the agreement, during normal grid operations, power from the microgrid will support GPC’s regular retail customers, including Tyndall AFB. During grid outages, the Air Force will have first right of refusal to backup power for support of three mission-critical facilities via Electrically Islanded Operations.

The 10-year agreement is a pilot program for GPC to demonstrate microgrid capabilities. The utility company will own, operate, and maintain the microgrid system, and construction will be at no cost to the Air Force. In addition to energy resilience, the project supports the DAF’s**renewable energy generation goals**.

“The Tyndall Microgrid is a fantastic example of a win-win project that the Air Force looks to develop with industry,” said Kirk Phillips, DAF Office of Energy Assurance director at the**Air Force Civil Engineer Center**. “Tyndall AFB gets enhanced electrical resilience through onsite generation as the primary benefit and renewables as an enhanced benefit and Gulf Power gets strategically sited rate based generation.”

The EAL consists of an approximate two-acre parcel of land made available through the Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) Program managed by**AFCEC’s Installations Directorate**. EULs are long-term agreements between the Air Force and public or private developers to lease non-excess, underutilized Air Force property in exchange for cash rent or in-kind consideration.

The AFCEC Installations Directorate acquires, manages and disposes of Air Force-controlled real property worldwide. To date, AFCEC has executed 22 EULs with over $108 million in consideration received by the Air Force. The Tyndall Microgrid EAL is the first of its kind for the Air Force.

“We are excited about this project,” said Julia Cantrell, AFCEC’s Real Estate Development EUL Execution Branch chief. “With a renewed focus on energy resilience for Air Force missions, it is undoubtedly the first of many to come.”AWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Tyndall Air Force Base 



renewable energy 



solar 



power grid 



Air Force Civil Engineer Center 



AFCEC 



AFIMSC 



Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center 



AFMC 



Air Force Materiel Command 



EAL 



Energy Assurance Lease 



enhanced use lease 



EUL
1

 The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2811

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Humberto Antonio Barbosa-Ramirez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 29, 2005

Filed: July 11, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Humberto Barbosa-Ramirez (Ramirez) pleaded guilty to conspiring to

distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of

methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1),

and 846, the district court1

 sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment and 5 years

supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Upon careful review of counsel’s brief

and the entire record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),we conclude that
-2-

Ramirez’s sentence, a 10-year statutory mandatory minimum, was proper based on

his admitted drug quantity. We also conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues

for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 179 (Thursday, September 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 56516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23090]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DoD-2010-OS-0086]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 
18, 2010.
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Acquisition University, Student 
Information System (SIS); OMB Control Number 0704-TBD.
    Type of Request: New.
    Number of Respondents: 90,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 90,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 7,500 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to permit an individual to register for a DAU training course. The 
information is used to evaluate the individual's eligibility for a 
course and to notify the individual of approval or disapproval of the 
request. It is also used to notify the training facility of assignments 
to classes, and for cost analysis, budget estimates and financial 
planning.
    Affected Public: Individuals or household.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: September 3, 2010.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-23090 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
EX-10.7.1



 Exhibit 10.7(1) 

AMENDMENT TO 

DISTRIBUTION SERVICES AGREEMENT 

This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Distribution Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of April 3, 2013,
as amended from time to time, by and among Direxion Shares ETF Trust II (the “Trust”), Asset Management, LLC (“Adviser”), Direxion Asset Management, LLC (the “Sponsor”) and Foreside Fund Services, LLC
(“Foreside”) is hereby entered into as of December 17, 2013 (the “Effective Date”). 
 WHEREAS, the parties
desire to amend Exhibit B of the Agreement to disclose the total fee payable to Foreside during the three year period of the offering; and 

WHEREAS, Section 8(b) of the Agreement requires that all amendments and modifications to the Agreement be in writing and executed
by the parties; 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 
 1.
Exhibit B to the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as provided on Appendix A attached hereto. 
 2. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. 
 3. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in effect and are hereby incorporated herein
by reference. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed in their names and on their behalf
by and through their duly authorized officers, as of the Effective Date. 
  

									
	DIREXION ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC	 		 	FORESIDE FUND SERVICES, LLC
					
	By:	 	/s/ Daniel D. O’Neill	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Mark Fairbanks
	Name:	 	Daniel D. O’Neill	 		 	Mark Fairbanks, President
	Title:	 	President	 		 		 	

  

			
	DIREXION SHARES ETF TRUST II
		
	By:	 	/s/ Daniel D. O’Neill
	Name:	 	Daniel D. O’Neill
	Title:	 	President








 Appendix A 

Exhibit B 
 Fee Schedule

  

			
	 One -time Fees
	  	 Amount

		
	Setup fee to include (i) establishment of AP agreements; (ii) advertising review framework/training; and (iii) technology requirements.	  	$
		
	 Recurring Fees
	  	 Rate

		
	(i) Trust registrant base fee	  	$         per annum, billed monthly
	(ii) Fund base fee (each a series within the Trust)	  	$         per annum billed monthly

 The total compensation paid to the Distributor over the three year period of the offering shall not exceed
$            .
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Michael C. Forman, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of FS Investment Corporation II; and                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



Date: April 24, 2019



|/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN   | 
|----------------------- | 
|Michael C. Forman       | 
|Chief Executive Officer |
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 391 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 391

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include vaccines against 
     seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2013

 Mr. Baucus (for himself and Mr. Hatch) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include vaccines against 
     seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITION OF VACCINES AGAINST SEASONAL INFLUENZA TO LIST OF 
              TAXABLE VACCINES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (N) of section 4132(a)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``or any other 
vaccine against seasonal influenza'' before the period.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) Sales, etc.--The amendment made by this section shall 
        apply to sales and uses on or after the later of--
                    (A) the first day of the first month which begins 
                more than 4 weeks after the date of the enactment of 
                this Act, or
                    (B) the date on which the Secretary of Health and 
                Human Services lists any vaccine against seasonal 
                influenza (other than any vaccine against seasonal 
                influenza listed by the Secretary prior to the date of 
                the enactment of this Act) for purposes of compensation 
                for any vaccine-related injury or death through the 
                Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.
            (2) Deliveries.--For purposes of paragraph (1) and section 
        4131 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of sales 
        on or before the effective date described in such paragraph for 
        which delivery is made after such date, the delivery date shall 
        be considered the sale date.
                                 <all>
```
# To m G r ee n C o unt y

Di s tri ct C l e r k

S h e r i W oo d f i n

1 1 2 W B eau r egard 3 2 5

- 65 9

- 6 5 79

S an An g e l o T X 7 6 9 0 3 Fax

- 3 2 5

- 65 9

- 3 2 41



### Ju l y 2 5

, 2 0 14

T hi rd C o u rt o f Appe a ls

P

. O

. Bo x 12547

Aus ti n

, T ex as 78 7 11

- 25 4 7

R e : Court of Appeals Number: 03

- 14

- 00655

- CR

Trial Court Case Number: D

- 13

- 0958

- SA

Style: Nathaniel J. Frazier, Jr.

v. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle,

In reference to the letter dated January 12, 2015 from the Third Court of Appeals, it stated the Supplemental Clerk’s Record be

submitted no later than Thursday, January 22, 2015 . We are not able to submit the record at this time since we have not

received the “Trial’s Court Certification of Defendant’s Right to Appeal” from the defendant’s Attorney Mr. Justin Mock. I have

notified the Attorney in reference to this matter with an other attachment of the Trial’s Court Certif ication.

Very truly yours,

REBECCA P. DOUGLAS

R ebe cc a D o ug las Di s tri c t

Deputy C l e rk C o u rt Se rvi c e

U n it

112 W es t B e a u r e g ard S an A nge l o

, T ex as

76903 r ebe cc a. d o ug l a s @ co .t o m. g r een

. t x

. u s
News United States Air Force
 Department of the Air Force WAGGI survey releasePublished Jan. 24, 2022
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Department of the Air Force will release the ‘Where Airmen and Guardians Get Information’ survey this week.

The survey will be emailed to most**Guardians** and approximately 12,000 randomly selected Air Force military and civilian personnel from all major demographics. The survey provides Department leaders and communication professionals with insights on how to provide Airmen and Guardians with relevant information through multiple internal and external sources.

“Airmen and Guardians consistently tell us they want better information from their leaders,” said**Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder**, Department of the Air Force Public Affairs director. “The WAGGI is one of the major ways we can give people a voice in how we communicate with them.”

WAGGI “tells us how our service members prefer to receive their information, especially now since**COVID** has changed some of our work environments and information consumption at home,” Ryder said. “What are their preferences for different online sources like Air Force or news websites, social media, or direct emails? How important are those versus in-person or virtual communication during commander’s calls, town halls, or conversations with their peers?”

WAGGI surveys occur every two or three years. In addition to looking at trends in information preferences, this year’s survey seeks information about the kinds of features Department personnel look for in information resources. These inputs will help inform decisions about future command information products and services.

Members who receive the email invitation are encouraged to take the survey and provide additional input through the comment options. The survey will be available for approximately four weeks.

The survey will be followed in the late spring by focus groups designed to improve understanding of the survey findings and to identify potential solutions to information shortfalls. Members are encouraged to volunteer for focus groups if their unit chooses to participate.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



survey 



Where Airmen and Guardians Get Information 



WAGGI 



communication 



sources 



findings 



COVID 



virtual communication 



outlets 



commander calls 



Town Halls