alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 120.68 Party to the export. ( a ) *Party to the export* means: ( 1 ) The chief executive officer, president, vice-presidents, other senior officers and officials (e.g., comptroller, treasurer, general counsel), and any member of the board of directors of the applicant;
( 2 ) The freight forwarders or designated exporting agent of the applicant; and
( 3 ) Any consignee or end-user of any item to be exported.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 1411.5 Identification of information requested. ( a ) Each request under this part should reasonbaly describe the records being sought in a way that they can be identified and located. A request should include all pertinent details that will help identify the records sought.
( b ) If the description is insufficient, the officer processing the request will so notify the person making the request and indicate the additional information needed. Every reasonable effort shall be made to assist in the identification and location of the record sought.
( c ) Upon receipt of a request for records, the appropriate Regional Director, the Freedom of Information Officer of the Office of the General Counsel, the Solicitor of the Authority, or the Executive Director of the Federal Service Impasses Panel, as appropriate, shall enter it in a public log. The log shall state the date and time received, the name and address of the person making the request, the nature of the records requested, the action taken on the request, the date of the determination letter sent pursuant to paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 1411.6, the date(s) any records are subsequently furnished, the number of staff-hours and grade levels of persons who spent time responding to the request, and the payment requested and received.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,222
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    205,645
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               321,306
<PP&E>                                       2,054,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                 275,772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,101,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          972,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     74,601
<COMMON>                                     9,079,024
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,038,937)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,101,044
<SALES>                                        176,964
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,964
<CGS>                                          190,680
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               830,931
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (471,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (471,087)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (471,087)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JACQUELYN FISHER

, Appellant,

v.

ROBERT LAMANO STEVEN

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 2344

[ November 4, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Glenn D. Kelley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CA000948

.

Scott J. Liotta of Dan Newlin & Partners, Orlando, for appellant.

Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Miami, and Lara J.

Edelstein of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C ONNER

, C.J., M AY and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 212.4 Materials available for public inspection and in electronic format. ( a ) In accordance with this subpart, the Agency shall make the following materials available for public inspection in an electronic format: ( 1 ) Operational policy in USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS) which have been adopted by the Agency and are not published in the Federal Register;
( 2 ) Administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect any member of the public; and
( 3 ) Copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released pursuant to a FOIA request, and which have been requested three (3) or more times, or because of the nature of their subject matter, have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records. The Agency shall decide on a case by case basis whether records fall into this category, based on the following factors: ( i ) Previous experience with similar records;
( ii ) The particular characteristics of the records involved, including their nature and the type of information contained in them; and
( iii ) The identity and number of requesters and whether there is widespread media, historical, academic, or commercial interest in the records.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York v. Rocco Doti et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Motion to dispense with printing granted insofar' as to permit the appeals to be heard on the original records, without printing the same, except that certified copies of the informations shall be substituted in place of the original informations, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellants’ points, on condition that the appellants serve one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellants’ points upon the District Attorney of Bronx County and file 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of appellants’ points, together with the original records, with this court on or before March 28, 1961, with notice of argument for the May 1961 Term of this court, said appeals to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

NOTICE SETTING

STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court shall hold a status conference at 8:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010, in

Courtroom 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02984-WHA Document 33 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1
### §300gg–135. Air ambulance services

In the case of a participant, beneficiary, or enrollee with benefits under a group health plan or group or individual health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer and who is furnished in a plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022, air ambulance services (for which benefits are available under such plan or coverage) from a nonparticipating provider (as defined in section 300gg–111(a)(3)(G) of this title) with respect to such plan or coverage, such provider shall not bill, and shall not hold liable, such participant, beneficiary, or enrollee for a payment amount for such service furnished by such provider that is more than the cost-sharing amount for such service (as determined in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 300gg–112(a) of this title, section 1185f(a) of title 29, or section 9817(a) of title 26, as applicable).

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVII, §2799B–5, as added Pub. L. 116–260, div. BB, title I, §105(b), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2851.)
# Fourth Court of Ap peals

San Antonio, Texas

June 2, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00068

- CR

Delmis Edmond SHIELDS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5474

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presid ing



### O R D E R

The a ppellant ’ s second motion for extension of time to file their brief is granted. The

appellant ’ s brief is due on July 1, 2016. No further extensions of time will be granted absent

extraordinary circumstances.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of June, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

 /

This Order Relates to:

ALL CASES

 /

No. M 07-1827 SI

MDL. No. 1827

ORDER CLARIFYING ORDER

CERTIFYING DIRECT PURCHASER

CLASSES RE: GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

Defendants have filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order

certifying direct purchaser classes. Defendants assert that the order must be clarified in two respects.

First, defendants assert that each of the class definitions should be modified by inserting the words “in

the United States” after the words “a TFT-LCD panel.” The Court finds it appropriate to insert this

language, as it was the intent of the order to certify a class of persons or entities that made direct

purchases in the United States.

Second, defendants state that the order should explicitly state which plaintiffs represent the panel

class and which plaintiffs represent the product class. The Court agrees with defendants that only those

named plaintiffs that purchased panels may represent the panel class, and that only those named

plaintiffs that purchased televisions, monitors or laptops may represent the product class. The Court

hereby modifies the class certification order to state that Texas Digital Systems, Inc. represents the panel

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1883 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 If plaintiffs assert that Univisions-Crimson Holding, Inc. is an adequate class representative

for the panel class, plaintiffs may file a motion to amend the class certification order to add UCH has

a representative for that class.

2

class, and the other named plaintiffs represent the product class. (Docket No. 1832).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1883 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIGOBERTO MENDOZA-PALACIOS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72952

Agency No. A200-630-205

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Rigoberto Mendoza-Palacios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of

removal and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

AUG 04 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
We review for substantial evidence determinations regarding good moral character. 

Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss

in part the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that MendozaPalacios is statutorily barred from establishing the good moral character necessary

to qualify for cancellation of removal, where he gave false testimony under oath in

immigration court with the subjective intent to obtain an immigration benefit. See

8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(1)(B); Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266. 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza-Palacios’s unexhausted contention

that he timely recanted his false testimony. Id. at 1266-67 (“Failure to raise an

argument before the BIA deprives this court of jurisdiction.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 13-72952
_________________ 

_________________ 

(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 579 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 

Per Curiam 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 15–674 

UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.

 TEXAS, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 23, 2016] 

PER CURIAM. 

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Taylor, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 655]

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered November 14, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in *261the seventh degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court, imposed March 31, 1998, modifying the sentence imposed upon the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Ordered that the judgment and resentence are affirmed.

The defendant’s bare assertion that the prosecutor used a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges to exclude black individuals from the jury was insufficient to make a prima facie showing of discrimination under *Batson (see, Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79; *People v Jenkins,*84 NY2d 1001, 1003; *People v Childress,*81 NY2d 263, 266; *People v Williams,*253 AD2d 901; *People v Gray,*243 AD2d 648). Thompson, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### § 214.3 A.I.D. Advisory Committee Management Officer.

The Advisory Committee Management Officer is responsible to the Administrator for the establishment of uniform administrative guidelines and management controls which must be consistent with directives of the Director of the OMB under sections 7 and 10 of the Act.
#### § 312.100 What does this part do?

This part carries out the portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.,* as amended) that applies to grants. It also applies the provisions of the Act to cooperative agreements and other financial assistance awards, as a matter of Federal Government policy.
§ 227.200 Agency and legislative liaison. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 227.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if the payment is for agency and legislative liaison activities not directly related to a covered Federal action.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, providing any information specifically requested by an agency or Congress is allowable at any time.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agency and legislative liaison activities are allowable at any time only where they are not related to a specific solicitation for any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Discussing with an agency (including individual demonstrations) the qualities and characteristics of the person's products or services, conditions or terms of sale, and service capabilities; and,
( 2 ) Technical discussions and other activities regarding the application or adaptation of the person's products or services for an agency's use.
( d ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agencies and legislative liaison activities are allowable only where they are prior to formal solicitation of any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Providing any information not specifically requested but necessary for an agency to make an informed decision about initiation of a covered Federal action;
( 2 ) Technical discussions regarding the preparation of an unsolicited proposal prior to its official submission; and,
( 3 ) Capability presentations by persons seeking awards from an agency pursuant to the provisions of the Small Business Act, as amended by Public Law 95-507 and other subsequent amendments.
( e ) Only those activities expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 3.1


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              PUMA TECHNOLOGY, INC.


         Puma Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"),
hereby certifies:

         1. That the Corporation's Board of Directors has duly adopted the
following resolutions:

         RESOLVED, that Article FIRST of the Corporation's Restated Certificate
of Incorporation is hereby amended to read in full as follows:

               "FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Pumatech, Inc."

         RESOLVED FURTHER, that paragraph A. of Article FOURTH of the
Corporation's Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to read in
full as follows:

               "FOURTH:

         A. The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
         Corporation shall have authority to issue is Eighty-Two Million
         (82,000,000), consisting of Eighty Million (80,000,000) shares of
         Common Stock, par value one-tenth of one cent ($.001) per share (the
         "Common Stock"), and Two Million (2,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock,
         par value one-tenth of one cent ($.001) per share (the "Preferred
         Stock")."

         2. That the proposed amendment has been duly adopted by the
Corporation's Board of Directors and stockholders in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 242 and 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware and the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted
in favor of the amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment of Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by its duly
authorized officers on this 19th day of December, 2000.

                                        PUMA TECHNOLOGY, INC.


                                        By:     /s/ BRADLEY A. ROWE
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                Bradley A. Rowe, Chief Executive
                                                Officer and President

                                        By:     /s/ STEPHEN A. NICOL
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                Stephen A. Nicol, Secretary


                                       44
#### Clarence Lee CALLIES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-50155

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 2007.

Clarance Callies, Big Spring, TX, pro se.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Clarence Lee Callies, Jr., federal prisoner # 13001-180, has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application as untimely. Callies seeks to challenge his 1996 Texas conviction and sentence for drug possession. Callies contends that he exercised “due diligence” in filing his application and that the limitation period should be waived; he also argues the merits of the challenge to his conviction.

Callies has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Callies’s motion for a COA is denied.

Callies has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for appointment of counsel. These motions are denied.

This court recently warned Callies that frivolous filings would result in the imposition of sanctions. *United States v. Callies,*158 Fed.Appx. 585, 587 (5th Cir.2005). Nonetheless, Callies has proceeded with an untimely application for relief from a conviction that is now more than 10 years old. Therefore, Callies is ordered to pay a sanction in the amount of $100, payable to the clerk of this court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts within this circuit are directed to refuse to file any civil complaint or appeal by Callies unless Callies submits proof of satisfaction of this sanction. If Callies attempts to file any further notices of appeal or original proceedings in this court without such proof the clerk will docket them for administrative purposes only. Any other submissions which do not show proof that the sanction has been paid will be neither addressed nor acknowledged. This sanction is imposed in addition to all other sanctions currently in force against Callies.

COA DENIED; IFP DENIED; APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED.

*

 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.