alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
____________________________________

Janet M. Meiburger, VA Bar No. 31842

The Meiburger Law Firm, P.C.

1493 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 201

McLean, VA 22101

(703) 556-7871

Counsel for Chapter 7 Trustee

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

__________________________________________

)

IN RE: )

)

CASSANDRA L. JOHNSON ) Case No. 17-11893-BFK

) Chapter 7

)

Debtor )

__________________________________________)

REPORT OF DEPOSIT OF UNCLAIMED FUNDS

The Trustee submits a check payable to “Clerk, United States Bankruptcy Court” in the 

amount of $63,649.12, representing unclaimed funds to be deposited by the Clerk of Court into 

the Treasury of the United States. Said funds are subject to withdrawal as provided by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2042 and shall not escheat under any state law. The unclaimed funds represent one-half of the 

proceeds of the sale of the property located at 3908 Woodley Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22309, 

which are payable to co-owner Olivier Javaudin. These proceeds are being paid to the Court 

pursuant to the Order Granting Trustee’s Motion to Approve Sale of Real Property Located at 

3908 Woodley Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22309 (Docket No. 67), because Mr. Javaudin cannot 

be located. 

Respectfully submitted,

THE MEIBURGER LAW FIRM, P.C.

Dated: October 11, 2018 By: /s/ Janet M. Meiburger

Janet M. Meiburger, Esq. (VSB No. 31842)

The Meiburger Law Firm, P.C.

1493 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 201

McLean, Virginia 22101

(703) 556-7871

 Counsel for Chapter 7 Trustee

Case 17-11893-BFK Doc 70 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 16:46:04 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PABLO IVAN HERNANDEZ-PALACIO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71920

Agency No. A071-575-846

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Pablo Ivan Hernandez-Palacio, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motions to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

FILED

SEP 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71920

reopen or reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Hernandez-Palacio’s motion

to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to comply

with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA

1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the face of the

record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).

In his opening brief, Hernandez-Palacio fails to address, and therefore has

waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that, construed as motion to

reconsider, the motion was untimely filed. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d

1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a

party’s opening brief are waived). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4734 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4734

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
171 South Maple Street in Dana, Indiana, as the ``Ernest `Ernie' T. Pyle 
                             Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ERNEST ``ERNIE'' T. PYLE POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 171 South Maple Street in Dana, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Ernest `Ernie' T. Pyle Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ernest 
`Ernie' T. Pyle Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### § 661.31 Do TTF bridge projects have to be listed on an approved TTP TIP?

Yes. All TTF bridge projects must be listed on an approved FHWA TTP TIP. TTF bridge projects included in the TTP TIP that are not fiscally constrained may still be included as a list of projects dependent upon the availability of additional resources, also known as an “illustrative list”.
## NUMBER 13 - 1 9 - 00 440 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ CHRISTINA RENEE DRAP ER , A ppellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Appellant, Christina Renee Draper , proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision . We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent2 a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to add ress the merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on May 23, 2019

. No motion for new trial was filed. Appellant filed h er notice of appeal on September 4, 2019

. On September 10, 2019 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected and that the appeal would be dismissed if the defe ct was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court ’ s directive. Appellant has not filed a response to the Court ’ s directive. Unless a motion for new trial has been timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety d ays after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See id. 26.2(a)(2). The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a mo tion complying with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3. Appellant ’ s notice of appeal, filed more than three months after sentence was imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Slat on , 981 S.W.2d at 210. Appellant may be entitled to an out

- of

- time appeal by filing a post

- conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Cour t. See T EX

.3 C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07, § 3(a); see also Ex parte Garcia , 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 3rd day of October, 2019.
#### Richard LaCagnina et al., Respondents, v Dennis Bernard, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 161]

*535In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated February 17, 2006, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that he failed to establish, prima facie, that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmed medical reports of the defendant’s examining neurologist concerning each plaintiff established significant limitations in various aspects of their respective cervical and lumbar spines which required denial of the motion *(see Smith v Delcore,*29 AD3d 890 [2006]; *Sano v Gorelik,*24 AD3d 747 [2005]; *Kaminsky v Waldner,*19 AD3d 370 [2005]; *Spuhler v Khan,*14 AD3d 693 [2005]; *Omar v Bello,*13 AD3d 430 [2004]; *Scotti v Boutureira,*8 AD3d 652 [2004]). Moreover, while the affirmed medical reports of the defendant’s examining orthopedist concerning each plaintiff set forth range of motion findings as to their respective cervical and lumbar spines he failed to compare those findings to what is considered normal ranges of motion *(see Sullivan v Dawes,*28 AD3d 472 [2006]; *Browdame v Candura,*25 AD3d 747 [2006]; *Paulino v Dedios,*24 AD3d 741 [2005]; *Kennedy v Brown,*23 AD3d 625 [2005]; *Baudilio v Pam Car & Truck Rental, Inc.,*23 AD3d 420 [2005]; *Manceri v Bowe,*19 AD3d 462 [2005]; *Aronov v Leybovich,*3 AD3d 511 [2004]). Since the defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden it is unnecessary to consider whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether either plaintiff sustained a serious injury as a result of the subject accident *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
### §460zz–5. State and local assistance and jurisdiction

#### (a) Grants

Upon approval of the plan under section 460zz–2 of this title, the Secretary is authorized to make grants to the State of Minnesota, or its political subdivisions, to cover not more than 50 percent of the cost of acquisition and development within the Area of lands and waters or interests therein in a manner consistent with the purposes of this part.

#### (b) Cooperative agreements

The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof pursuant to which he may assist in the planning for and interpretation of non-Federal publicly owned lands within the Area.

#### (c) Technical assistance

To enable the State of Minnesota and its political subdivisions to develop and implement programs compatible with the plan, the Secretary shall provide such technical assistance to the State and its political subdivisions as he deems appropriate.

#### (d) State and local jurisdiction

Nothing in this part shall diminish, enlarge, or modify any right of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction or to carry out State fish and wildlife laws, rules, and regulations within the Area, or to tax persons, corporations, franchises, or private property on the lands and waters included in the Area.

(Pub. L. 100–696, title VII, §706, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4607.)
cc: Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Jon Nathan Owens

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 

### e
§ 660.507 Definitions. ( a ) *Defense installation.* A military reservation or installation, or defense related industry or source of raw materials.
( b ) *Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC).* The military transportation agency with responsibilities assigned by the Secretary of Defense for maintaining liaison with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other agencies for the integration of defense needs into the Nation's highway program.
( c ) *Certification.* The statement to the Secretary of Transportation by the Secretary of Defense (or such other official as the President may designate) that certain roads are important to the national defense.
( d ) *Access road.* An existing or proposed public highway which is needed to provide essential highway transportation services to a defense installation. (This definition may include public highways through military installations only when right-of-way for such roads is dedicated to public use and the roads are maintained by civil authority.)
( e ) *Replacement road.* A public road constructed to replace one closed by establishment of a new, or the expansion of an old, defense installation.
( f ) *Maneuver area road.* A public road in an area delineated by official orders for field maneuvers or exercises of military forces.
( g ) *Transporter-erector route.* A public road specifically designated for use by the TE vehicle for access to missile sites.
### §47f. Inapplicability of certain laws to lands acquired under section 47e

The provisions of the Federal Power Act, as amended [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.], shall not apply to any of the lands added to the Yosemite National Park pursuant to the provisions of section 47e of this title.

(July 9, 1937, ch. 469, §3, 50 Stat. 486.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Power Act, referred to in text, was in the original the "Act approved June 10, 1920, as amended, known as the Federal Water Power Act," and was redesignated as the Federal Power Act by section 791a of this title. The Federal Power Act is act June 10, 1920, ch. 285, 41 Stat. 1063, and is classified generally to chapter 12 (§791a et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 791a of this title and Tables.
A8: Salt River Peak

Desert Tortoise

Peregrin Falcon

Tonto National Forest

Supervisor's Office _|
UTM Zone 12 NAD83 \
Salt River Peak Quadrang}

16 Feb 2010 00.046.09
### Geology of the Belmont and Calamine quadrangles, Wisconsin

By: Harry KlemicWalter S. West

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1123G

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (5650 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 22**                            (9654 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 23**                            (160 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 24**                            (132 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
EL OLVIDO:

¿Qué es normal y qué no?

Muchas personas comienzan a olvidarse de las cosas

a medida que envejecen.

¿Cómo se puede diferenciar entre

un olvido

leve

problemas graves y de memoria

como la enfermedad 

de Alzheimer?

Vea lo que es típico y lo que no es:

ENVEJECIMIENTO

NORMAL

ENFERMEDAD DE 

ALZHEIMER

• Tomar una mala decisión 

de vez en cuando.

• Hacer juicios equivocados o 

tomar malas decisiones la 

mayor parte del tiempo.
 

ENVEJECIMIENTO

NORMAL

ENFERMEDAD DE 

ALZHEIMER

• Olvidarse de hacer un

 pago mensual.

• No recordar qué día es 

y acordarse más tarde.

• A veces no saber qué

 palabra usar.

• Perder cosas de vez en cuando.

• Tener problemas para pagar 

las facturas mensuales.

• Perder la pista de la fecha o

 la época del año.

• Tener dificultad para

 mantener una conversación.

• Perder cosas a menudo y no 

poder encontrarlas.

Aunque olvidarse de algunas

cosas vienen con la edad, no

ignore los cambios que le 

preocupan sobre su memoria

o forma de pensar.

Hable con su médico si

nota que tiene problemas

de memoria más graves

de lo normal.

Para más información sobre

el olvido y la pérdida de la 

memoria, visite

www.nia.nih.gov/espanol/

memoria-perdida.
EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ISSUER

                             HEALTH-CHEM CORPORATION
                         LIST OF SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS

                                                                State or Country
                Name                                            of Incorporation
                ----                                            ----------------

Transderm Corporation                                               Delaware
Aberdeen Research Corporation                                       Delaware
Capco Delaware, Inc.                                                Delaware
HS Protective Fabrics Corporation                                   Delaware
Health-Chem Industries, Inc.                                        Delaware
Health Med Corporation                                              Delaware
Hercon Environmental Corporation                                    Delaware
Hercon Laboratories Corporation                                     Delaware
Hercon Pharmaceutical Corporation                                   Delaware
Herculite Products, Inc.                                            New York
Medallion Group, Inc.                                               Delaware
Pacific Combining Corporation                                       California
Research Development Corporation                                    Delaware
Springs Development Corporation                                     Delaware
York Aerosol Corporation                                            Delaware
York Aerosol Delivery Systems Corporation                           Delaware
MEMORANDUM

TO: Air and Radiation Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 201 5

- 0 111

FROM: Dallas Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, US EPA

DATE: November 24 , 201 5

SUBJECT: RIN Prices in 2015 (January

– October)

The following graphs display the prices of conventional biofuel RINs (D6), advanced biofuel RINs (D5), and biomass

- based diesel RINs (D4) in 2014. All prices are from the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) Ethanol and Biodiesel Information Service. The first graph shows the price of 2015 RINs f

rom January

– October 2015. The second graph shows the price for 2014 RINs during this same time period.
§ 79.22 Criteria for eligibility for claims relating to certain specified diseases contracted after exposure in an affected area (“downwinders”). To establish eligibility for compensation under this subpart, a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must establish each of the following: ( a ) ( 1 ) That the claimant was physically present at any place within the affected area for a period of at least two years (24 consecutive or cumulative months) during the period beginning on January 21, 1951, and ending on October 31, 1958; or
( 2 ) That the claimant was physically present at any place within the affected area for the entire, continuous period beginning on June 30, 1962, and ending on July 31, 1962; and
( b ) That after such period of physical presence the claimant contracted one of the following specified compensable diseases: ( 1 ) Leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia), provided that: ( i ) The claimant's initial exposure occurred after the age of 20; and
( ii ) The onset of the disease occurred at least two years after first exposure;
( 2 ) Multiple myeloma, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 3 ) Lymphomas, other than Hodgkin's disease, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 4 ) Primary cancer of the thyroid, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 5 ) Primary cancer of the male or female breast, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 6 ) Primary cancer of the esophagus, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 7 ) Primary cancer of the stomach, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 8 ) Primary cancer of the pharynx, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 9 ) Primary cancer of the small intestine, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 10 ) Primary cancer of the pancreas, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 11 ) Primary cancer of the bile ducts, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 12 ) Primary cancer of the gallbladder, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 13 ) Primary cancer of the salivary gland, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 14 ) Primary cancer of the urinary bladder, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 15 ) Primary cancer of the brain, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 16 ) Primary cancer of the colon, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 17 ) Primary cancer of the ovary, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( 18 ) Primary cancer of the liver, provided, ( i ) Onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
( ii ) There is no indication of the presence of hepatitis B; and
( iii ) There is no indication of the presence of cirrhosis; or
( 19 ) Primary cancer of the lung, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure.
### §19j. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 90–209, §6, Dec. 18, 1967, 81 Stat. 657, related to authority for execution of contracts, instruments, and necessary or appropriate acts. See section 101116 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.