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

          - 38 CFR Part 3 
          - RIN 2900-AL38 

# AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document withdraws a proposed rule that would have removed the adjudication regulation that requires written and oral testimony to be certified or given under oath or affirmation in most cases. This proposed rule was erroneously published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on July 31, 2002, at 67 FR 49646, under a previously deleted Regulatory Identification Number (RIN 2900-AK24). The proposal is being withdrawn because the Department of Veterans Affairs is revising and republishing its part 3 compensation and pension regulations to make them easier to understand and apply. To ensure that this proposal is consistent with other related regulations being rewritten and published in that project, it is being withdrawn at this time. The Regulation Rewrite Project plans to republish this proposed rulemaking within one of its packages of regulations, “General Evidence Requirements, Effective Dates, Revision of Decisions, and Protection of Existing Ratings.”                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bill Russo, Chief of C&P Rewrite Projects (00REG2), Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 273-9515. This is not a toll-free number. 

Anthony J. Principi, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 04-2795 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
#### Banjo Lopez LAPENA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71547.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*542Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 15, 2007.

Banjo Lopez Lapena, Eloy, AZ, pro se.

Cynthia M. Parsons, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Banjo Lopez Lapena, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *Parrilla v. Gonzales,*414 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part.

Reviewing de novo, *Altamirano v. Gonzales,*427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005), we have held that a conviction pursuant to California Penal Code § 261.5(c) for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor is categorically “sexual abuse of a minor,” an aggravated felony. *See Afridi v. Gonzales,*442 F.3d 1212, 1217 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, Lapena is ineligible for lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) (precluding cancellation for aliens “convicted of any aggravated felony”).

We also conclude that the BIA properly corrected the IJ’s reference to an incorrect section of the California Penal Code.

*543We lack jurisdiction to review Lapena’s remaining claims, concerning relief under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and due process, which were not exhausted before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Second Department,

February, 1961

(February 1, 1961)

#### Samuel Brechner et al., Appellants, v. Incorporated Village of Lake Success et al., Respondents.

Motion by respondent Gilman and motion by the other respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellants perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the March Term, beginning February 27, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before February 20, 1961. Cross motion by appellants to extend time to perfect appeal granted; time extended to the March Term, beginning February 27, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2

Certain
officers and key employees of the Company, including Jeffrey M. Jackson, Eric J. Speck, M. Sam Gilliland, and David A. Schwarte, were granted cash-based long-term
incentive awards by the Corporation in January 2003. These awards were granted to provide a stabilizing element to the executives' long-term incentive award programs, consistent with emerging market
practices. The award amounts are 1.5 times the officers' 2003 annual base salary and generally vest in January 2005. Awards will be forfeited if the recipient voluntarily terminates employment or is
terminated for cause or non-performance prior to payment. The form of Cash Award Agreement received by each officer is set forth below:

FORM OF  SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION  CASH AWARD AGREEMENT

|RECIPIENT NAME:         |  |                 
|----------------------- |  | ----------------
|                       
|EMPLOYEE NUMBER:        |  |                 
|                       
|SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: |  |                 
|                       
|AWARD DATE:             |  | January 14, 2003
|                       
|CASH AWARD:             |  |                 
|                       
|VESTING DATE:           |  | January 14, 2005
|                       

By
signing below you accept and agree to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

|SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION            |  |  |  | RECIPIENT
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------
|By: /s/ James F. Brashear             |  |  |  |          
|                                      |  |  |  | Sign:    
|                                      |  |  |  |          
|James F. Brashear
Corporate Secretary |  | 

1

---



SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION  CASH AWARD AGREEMENT  APPENDIX A

Your
Cash Award is subject to the following additional terms and conditions:

A-2

---

END
OF APPENDIX A

A-3

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of John L. Piazza, an Attorney, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

May 22, 1978

*455APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Nicholas C. Cooper*for petitioner.

*John L. Piazza,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 23, 1964. The petition and supplemental petition set forth six charges of misconduct, four of which were sustained by the Referee. Those four charges involved, *inter alia,*the following misconduct: (1) failing to protect the interests of clients and representing clients with conflicting interests to the detriment of one of the clients; (2) participating with his client, a building developer, in misappropriating statutory trust funds; (3) while representing the afore-mentioned client, knowingly failing to disclose facts and making false and misleading statements of fact, concerning the financial status of his client’s enterprises; and (4) improperly soliciting legal business through a real estate business conducted in the corporate name John L. Piazza, Inc.

Petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Referee to whom the matter was referred for hearing and report. Respondent cross-moves to dismiss the original petition and supplemental petition or, in the alternative, to set aside the Referee’s report.

In our opinion, these four charges were fully sustained by the evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is granted and the respondent’s cross motion is denied.

The respondent is adjudged guilty of serious professional misconduct and should be, and he hereby is, disbarred from further practice of law and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective forthwith.

Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham, Damiani and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
#### Schaffer & Perlman v. Samuel Gerst, Inc.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present —■ Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
### §5053. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–293, §5(b)(1), May 27, 1976, 90 Stat. 526

Section, Pub. L. 93–113, title IV, §413, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 411, authorized Director to carry out programs of this chapter during fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and three succeeding fiscal years, and authorizing Congress to appropriate such sums as necessary for each fiscal year.
#### Seth Grant, Sr., v. Theodore Morris.

Application granted. The stay contained in the order to show cause, dated April 16, 1962, is continued on the conditions contained therein. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### Michael Nolan, Appellant, v Carl W. Moeller, Jr., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[832 NYS2d 860]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered July 1, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied plaintiffs motion to set aside a jury verdict.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,*155 AD2d 435 [1989]; *see also*CPLR 5501 [a] [1], [2]). Present—Martoche, J.E, Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.
### §3889. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–415, title IV, §402(b), Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1133

Section, Pub. L. 90–445, title IV, §409, as added Pub. L. 92–381, §1, Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 537, related to preparation and submission of a report to the President by the Interdepartmental Council concerning all Federal activities in the field of juvenile delinquency.

A prior section 3889, Pub. L. 90–445, title IV, §409, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 473, related to appointment of advisory committees by the Secretary in respect to activities under prior chapter 47, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Repeals

Title IV of Pub. L. 93–415, which repealed this section, was repealed by Pub. L. 95–115, §10, Oct. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 1061, and Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title II, §12221(a)(4), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1894.

Repeal by Pub. L. 95–115 effective Oct. 1, 1977, see former section 263(c) of Pub. L. 93–415, as added by Pub. L. 95–115, which is classified as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 11101 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JEFFERY M. JACKSON**

 

On this day, Sabre Holdings Corporation (the “Company”)filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2005 (the “Report”).

 

Thiswritten statement accompanied the Report.

 

I, Jeffery M. Jackson, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Jeffery M. Jackson                                |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jeffery M. Jackson                                    |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
| November 4, 2005                                 |

 

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice 128330(48) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 128330 COA: 252031 Wayne CC: 03-008352-01 DONALD CHARLES, a/k/a DONALD CHILDS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of September 28, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0123 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 30, 2006

Clerk
### §300x–62. Availability to States of grant payments

Any amounts paid to a State for a fiscal year under section 300x or 300x–21 of this title shall be available for obligation and expenditure until the end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the amounts were paid.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIX, §1952, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title II, §203(a), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 409; amended Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXIV, §3403(b), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1220.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–310 reenacted section catchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

"(a) In General.—Subject to subsection (b) of this section, any amounts paid to a State under the program involved shall be available for obligation until the end of the fiscal year for which the amounts were paid, and if obligated by the end of such year, shall remain available for expenditure until the end of the succeeding fiscal year.

"(b) Exception Regarding Noncompliance of Subgrantees.—If a State has in accordance with subsection (a) of this section obligated amounts paid to the State under the program involved, in any case in which the Secretary determines that the obligation consists of a grant or contract awarded by the State, and that the State has terminated or reduced the amount of such financial assistance on the basis of the failure of the recipient of the assistance to comply with the terms upon which the assistance was conditioned—

"(1) the amounts involved shall be available for reobligation by the State through September 30 of the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the amounts were paid to the State; and

"(2) any of such amounts that are obligated by the State in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be available for expenditure through such date."
[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF MINOR’S SETTLEMENT FUNDS

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN #69888)

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120

Oakland, California 94621 

(510) 839-5200; FAX (510) 839-3882

Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com

JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043)

JULIE M. HOUK (SBN# 114968)

Law Offices of James B. Chanin

3050 Shattuck Avenue

Berkeley, California 94705

(510) 848-4752; FAX: (510) 848-5819

Email: jbcofc@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

REGINALD OLIVER, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD OLIVER, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

vs.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.

 Defendants.

_____________________________________

AND RELATED CASES.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MASTER CASE NO: C00-4599 TEH

OLIVER CASE NO: C08-04914 TEH

JACKSON CASE NO: C08-4984 TEH

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF 

MINOR’S SETTLEMENT FUNDS 

(Petitioner, Sandra Phelps, on behalf of 

Minor Plaintiff Putative Class Member,

A[Redacted] W[Redacted])

Redacted for E-Filing

)

The application of Petitioner, Sandra Phelps, the mother of the Minor Plaintiff,

A[Redacted] W[Redacted], for authority to deposit the funds of said Minor in the sum of 

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document75-2 Filed08/11/10 Page1 of 2 Case 3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document 82 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF MINOR’S SETTLEMENT FUNDS

OLIVER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CASE NO. C08-04914 TEH

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

$18,574.60 in a federally insured blocked account at the [Redacted], in the name of Petitioner,

Sandra Phelps, as trustee for the Minor, A[Redacted] W[Redacted], is hereby approved.

It is ordered that upon Petitioner’s receipt of the sum of $18,574.60, which belongs to the 

Minor, A[Redacted] W[Redacted], said sum shall be forthwith deposited as set forth above by 

Petitioner, Sandra Phelps, as trustee for the Minor, A[Redacted] W[Redacted], and the bank 

account show the name of said Minor.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no withdrawals are to be made from said account 

without court order until the Minor reaches the age of 18 years on or after [Redacted], 2021.

IT IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY ORDERED THAT THE FUNDS DEPOSITED IN 

THE AFOREMENTIONED FEDERALLY INSURED ACCOUNT PURSUANT TO THIS 

ORDER SHALL NOT ESCHEAT.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated:________________ _____________________________ 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON

 JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES

 DISTRICT COURT

Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document75-2 Filed08/11/10 Page2 of 2

8/10/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document 82 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2
exh4-1.htm


Exhibit 4.1





	  



	 	  









 


 




 

October 28, 2010







[Warrant Holder]:








	
Re:

	
Common Stock and Warrant Purchase Agreement Dated as of March 28, 2002, as amended (the “Purchase Agreement”)












Gentlemen:







Reference is made to the Purchase Agreement and the common stock purchase warrants issued pursuant thereto and currently outstanding as listed on Exhibit A attached to this letter (the “Warrants”).







The Warrants have an expiration date, as extended, of October 29, 2010 (the “Expiration Date”).  The Company has extended the Expiration Date to December 31, 2010.  The Company represents and warrants to each of the holders of the Warrants that all necessary corporate action to authorize the extension of the Expiration Date has been taken and the Company has full power and authority to issue this letter.







For our records, please acknowledge receipt of this letter and your consent to the extension of the Expiration Date of the Warrants to December 31, 2010 by countersigning this letter where indicated below.





	
EVERGREEN ENERGY INC.


	  
	  
	
By:______________________________


	
    Thomas B. Stoner, Chief Executive


	
         Officer











 


 




 





  









1225 17th Street, Suite 1300


Denver, CO USA 80202-5506


www.evgenergy.com




  





  











  










	  



	 	  









 
































The undersigned investors acknowledge and agree to the terms of this letter:













	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
 

	  	  	  	
 


	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	    	 	
 

	 	 	 	    By:  {Warrant holder}
	 	  	
 

	  	  	  	
 


	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
 

	  	 	  	  	  	
                                                    


	  	  	
 

	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  





 


 


 


 




 














1225 17th Street, Suite 1300


Denver, CO USA 80202-5506


www.evgenergy.com




  





  











  






 




	  



	 	  









 







EXHIBIT A







Outstanding Warrants







 


 


 







 


 


 












1225 17th Street, Suite 1300


Denver, CO USA 80202-5506


www.evgenergy.com
#### § 225.121 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Levy, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 909]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered February 10, 2005, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court *(see*CPL 220.60 [3]; *People v Gutierrez,*35 AD3d 883 [2006]; *People v Grimes, 35*AD3d 882 [2006]). In this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty *(see People v White,*25 AD3d 576 [2006]; *People v Rangolan,*295 AD2d 543 [2002]; *People v Badger,*288 AD2d 485 [2001]). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Ritter and Balkin, JJ., concur.
#### Carrie O’Brien, Respondent, v. Vida May, as Executrix, etc., of *946Michael O’Brien, Deceased, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Motion to open default denied. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs, and appeal dismissed, with costs. Held, that the appeal is so lacking in merits as to justify denial of the motion to open the default.
§ 241.5 Non-impairment of the Guarantee. After issuance of a Guarantee, that Guarantee will be an unconditional, full faith and credit obligation of the United States of America, and will not be affected or impaired by any subsequent condition or event. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the claiming Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became a Noteholder. Moreover, the Guarantee shall not be affected or impaired by: ( a ) Any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, USAID, the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee; or
( b ) The suspension or termination of the program pursuant to which USAID is authorized to guarantee the Eligible Notes.
### §4155. Effective date of standards

Every building designed, constructed, or altered after the effective date of a standard issued under this chapter which is applicable to such building, shall be designed, constructed, or altered in accordance with such standard.

(Pub. L. 90–480, §5, Aug. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 719.)
§ 308.5 New uses of information. The agency shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of its intention to establish a new or revised routine use of any system of records maintained by it with an opportunity for public comments on such use. Such notice shall contain the following: ( a ) The name of the system of records for which the new or revised routine use is to be established.
( b ) The authority for maintaining the system of records.
( c ) The categories of records maintained in the system.
( d ) The purpose for which the record is to be maintained.
( e ) The proposed routine use(s).
( f ) The purpose of the routine use(s).
( g ) The categories of recipients of such use.
In the event of any request for an addition to the routine uses of the systems which the agency maintains, such request may be sent to the following officer: Director, Office of Administrative Services, Peace Corps, 806 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20526.
§ 35.13 Parties to the hearing. ( a ) The parties to the hearing shall be the defendant and the Authority.
( b ) Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5), a private plaintiff under the False Claims Act may participate in these proceedings to the extent authorized by the provisions of that Act.