alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
              CONNECTICUT NATURAL GAS CORPORATION EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN
                               (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED
                           EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 1989)


               The Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation Employee Savings

          Plan is hereby amended as follows:

               1.   Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Exchange,

          outstanding shares of CNG Common Stock will be exchanged for

          shares of the common stock of CTG Resources, Inc.  Each share of

          CNG Common Stock will be exchanged for one share of common stock

          of CTG Resources, Inc. ("CTG").  As of the effective date of such

          Agreement and Plan of Exchange, any reference in the Plan docu-

          ment to "CNG Common Stock" as an investment option under the Plan

          (including voting rights relating thereto), and as a distribution

          option, shall be deleted and replaced by reference to "CTG Common

          Stock."  This change from CNG to CTG shall relate solely to the

          investment of such stock under the Plan; CNG shall continue to be

          the Company sponsoring and maintaining the Plan.

               2.   The last sentence of Section 2.05A, as added by the

          Second Amendment, relating to "Change of Control," is amended by

          the addition of the words "or any related corporation" after the

          words "of the Corporation" set forth in the parenthetical phrase

          in subsection (iii)(2) thereof; and by the deletion of the last

          sentence thereof and the substitution of the following sentence

          in lieu thereof:

               "Following the effective date of an Agreement and Plan
               of Exchange, pursuant to which outstanding shares of
               CNG Common Stock will be exchanged for shares of the
               common stock of CTG Resources, Inc., the term<PAGE>





               'Corporation,' as used in this Section 2.05A, shall
               mean CTG Resources, Inc., or any successor thereto."

               3.   Except as hereinabove modified and amended, the Amended

          and Restated Plan (as amended) shall remain in full force and

          effect.

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company hereby executes this Sixth

          Amendment this 2nd day of May, 1997.


          WITNESS:                      CONNECTICUT NATURAL GAS CORPORATION


          S/ R. L. Babcock                   S/ James P. Bolduc
          _________________________     By:_______________________________
                                           Its

































                                          2<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arthur Robert NEAL, Appellant.

No. 10-2629.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 15, 2010.

Filed: Feb. 9, 2011.

Sean R. Berry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellee.

John P. Messina, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellant.

Arthur Robert Neal, Cedar Rapids, IA, pro se.

Before SMITH, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In July 2009, a grand jury charged Arthur Neal in a two-count indictment with, generally stated, the production of child pornography, and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e), and § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2), respectively. Neal pleaded guilty to the production charge and the court1 dismissed the possession charge on the government’s motion.

In support of Neal’s guilty plea, he stipulated that in approximately 2008 he induced a thirteen-year-old female to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of the same. Neal knew the thirteen-year-old victim because he occasionally supervised her. The photographs at issue in the instant case were discovered by Neal’s former roommate in April 2009 in the trailer that the two had shared. In December 2008, the victim disclosed to her school nurse that she had been sexually abused by Neal. Following this disclosure, the local Child Protection Center conducted a videotaped interview with the victim where she repeated the accusation.

At sentencing, Neal objected to the court’s admission and consideration of the *44videotaped recording of the victim’s allegations of abuse, arguing that the video was not reliable evidence and that the minor victim should testify. The district court admitted the out-of-court statement after conducting a thorough review on the record regarding the reliability of the video in light of what the court viewed as corroborating evidence in the case. On appeal, Neal claims the district court abused its discretion in finding that the hearsay statement of the minor victim was sufficiently reliable for consideration at sentencing. He claims that the absence of a courtroom confrontation leaves ample room for mistaken decision-making on these facts.

We review the decision to admit the victim’s hearsay statement for sentencing purposes for abuse of discretion, recognizing that the right of confrontation does not apply in sentencing proceedings. *United States v. Bastian,*603 F.3d 460, 466-67 (8th Cir.2010); *United States v. Brown,*430 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2005); *United States v. Wallace,*408 F.3d 1046, 1048 (8th Cir.2005). Hearsay is admissible in sentencing proceedings so long as it bears some indicia of reliability. *United States v. Schlosser,*558 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir.2009). Here, the district court was thorough and concise in its colloquy articulating the indicium of reliability as to the video interview. On this record we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus VALENZUELA-RODELO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10215.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 23, 2007.

Liz Barrick, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald W. MacPherson, Esq., The MacPherson Group, PC, Glendale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Valenzuela-Rodelo appeals from his conviction and 80-month sentence following a jury trial conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Valenzuela-Rodelo’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw *663as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
2009-1911.

#### State v. Nicholson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 91662, 2009-Ohio-3592. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 8.1



|Name of Subsidiary                               |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Beneficial Ownership
|------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------- |  | --------------------
|Windrace International Company Limited           |  | Cayman Islands                |  | 100%                
|Windrace Investment Holding Limited              |  | British Virgin Islands        |  | 100%                
|Hei Dai Lung Group Company Limited               |  | Hong Kong                     |  | 100%                
|Fujian Xidelong Sports Goods Co., Ltd.           |  | People’s Republic of China    |  | 100%                
|Xidelong (China) Co. Ltd.                        |  | People’s Republic of China    |  | 100%                
|Xidelong (Jiang Xi) Athletic Equipment Co., Ltd. |  | People’s Republic of China    |  | 100%
* 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

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51382

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRUZ GERARDO ORTIZ-GALINDO, also known

as Gerardo Ortiz-Galindo,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-1390-1-PRM

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Cruz Gerardo Ortiz-Galindo appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Ortiz-Galindo contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have
No. 03-51382

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Ortiz-Galindo maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ortiz-Galindo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Maria Irene Berumen SORIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74360.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 26, 2007.

Sarah J.M. Jones, Law Offices of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Mona Maria Yous-if, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Upon review of the record and petitioner’s filings, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted. The questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument because petitioner lacked the requisite ten years continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) & (d)(1); *United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00385-CR

EX PARTE Bradford C. BINDOCK

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CR-7996-W2

Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order signed on June 

25, 2020 denying habeas corpus relief is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 23, 2020.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EC01-56-001]

Take notice that on February 23, 2001, pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Part 33 of the Commission's regulations, Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc. (MLCS) filed an Amendment to the Application for approval of the disposition of MLCS's jurisdictional facilities to Allegheny Energy Global Markets, LLC (Allegheny Global) and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny Supply). The Amendment was filed to reflect Allegheny Supply as a possible recipient of some or all of MLCS's wholesale electric power supply agreements.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before March 8, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-5525 Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boulder Capital Opportunities II,
Inc. (the Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended herein as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Delaney, Chief
Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 fully presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          or the Company.

Dated: November 30,  2004
                                                     By: /s/  Michael J. Delaney
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5460]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Geological Survey


Application Notice Describing the Areas of Interest and 
Establishing the Closing Date for Receipt of Applications Under the 
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) for Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2002

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Applications are invited for research projects under the 
NEHRP.
    The purpose of this Program is to support the USGS Earthquake 
Hazards Program by providing products for earthquake loss reduction to 
the public and private sectors and by carrying out research on 
earthquake occurrence and effects.
    Applications may be submitted by educational institutions, private 
firms, private foundations, individuals, and agencies of state and 
local governments.

ADDRESSES: The program announcement is expected to be available on or 
about March 1, 2001. You may obtain a copy of Announcement No. 
02HQPA0001 from the USGS Contracts and Grants Information Site at 
http://www.usgs.gov/contracts/nehrp/ or by writing to Sherri Newman, 
U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Acquisition and Grants--Mail Stop 
205G, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, or by fax 
(703) 648-7901.

DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications will be on or about 
May 1, 2001. The actual closing date will be specified in Announcement 
No. 02HQPA0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Unger, Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program--U.S. Geological Survey, Mail Stop 905, 12201 Sunrise 
Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192. Telephone: (703) 648-6701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for this program is contained in 
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95-124 (42 
U.S.C. 7701, et seq.). The Office of Management and Budget Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance Number is 15.807.

    Dated: February 15, 2001.
Patricia P. Dunham,
Deputy Chief, Office of Administrative Policy and Services.
[FR Doc. 01-5460 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-Y7-M
#### Williams *et al. v.*Williams *et al.*

Submitted June 7,

Decided July 20, 1901.

Application for administration — appeal. Before Judge Brinson. Richmond superior court. October 25, 1900.

To an application for administration, which stated that the person on whose estate administration was sought had died in another State, “leaving real estate” in the county in which the application was made, there was a caveat stating that the caveators “ are concerned in the subject-matter ” of the application, but not indicating the nature of their interest in the subject-matter, and setting up, among other grounds of objection, that the decedent left no property in this State. When the case, on appeal, came up for hearing, counsel for the caveators, in response to an inquiry by the court, stated that the caveators were neither creditors nor heirs at law of *1007the decedent, and that their interest in the subject-matter was that the property alleged in the application to be the estate of the decedent, and on which administration was sought, was claimed by the caveators to be their property and not the property of the decedent’s estate. Counsel for the applicants did not controvert this statement, but contended that the caveators, being neither heirs nor creditors of the decedent, had no right to caveat the application; and on this ground the court dismissed the caveat. To this judgment the caveators excepted.

*1006Little, J.

In order for one to be heard in a proceeding before the ordinary for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of a deceased person, he must show that he has an interest in the choice of administrator, either as heir or creditor of the deceased. *Augusta R. Co.*v. *Peacock,*56 *Ga.*146. A claim to own the property named in the petition for administration is not sufficient; some interest on the part of the objector in the assets and their distribution must appear. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*

*1007
      *Salem*Butcher, for plaintiffs in error.

*F. T. & J. B. Lockhart,*contra.
#### Dennis Paterra, Appellant, v Arc Development LLC et al., Respondents.

[24 NYS3d 631]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about September 8, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200 and common-law negligence claims as against defendants Arc Development LLC and Riverdale Heights LLC, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants were entitled to dismissal of all of plaintiff’s Labor Law claims, since plaintiff asserted the Labor Law claims for the first time in his bill of particulars, and failed to *475allege them in his complaint *(see Castleton v Broadway Mall Props., Inc.,*41 AD3d 410, 411 [2d Dept 2007]; *Webster v Supermarkets Gen. Corp.,*209 AD2d 405 [2d Dept 1994]). The purpose of the bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings *(see Kolb v Beechwood Sedgewick LLC,*78 AD3d 481, 482 [1st Dept 2010]), and “may not be used to supply allegations essential to a cause of action that was not pleaded in the complaint” *(Alami v 215 E. 68th St., L.P.,*88 AD3d 924, 926 [2d Dept 2011]). Nor may the bill of particulars “add or substitute a new theory or cause of action” *(Melino v Tougher Heating & Plumbing Co.,*23 AD2d 616, 617 [3d Dept 1965]).

Plaintiffs common-law negligence claim, which was pleaded in the complaint, was properly dismissed. There is no evidence that defendants supervised or controlled plaintiff’s work or had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition over which plaintiff tripped *(see Rajkumar v Budd Contr. Corp., 77*AD3d 595, 596 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.