alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 89-CC-0058

#### Willie White, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed July 13, 1992.*

Willie White, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Steven Schmall, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

*246ORDER

Montana, C.J.

This cause comes on to be heard on the Respondents motion to dismiss, due notice having been given, no objection having been filed, and the Court being advised, finds:

Claimant filed this claim seeking to recover the amount of an unemployment insurance warrant issued by the Illinois Department of Employment Security. The Division of Benefit Payment Control of the Department of Employment Security holds administrative hearings to determine whether a warrant should be reissued. The claims adjudicator denied reissuance of the warrant.

Section 3 — 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 3 — 104) states that jurisdiction to review final administrative decisions is vested in the circuit court. The fact that the review of the decision of the Division of Benefit Payment Control is provided through administrative review in the circuit court prevents the Court of Claims from assuming jurisdiction over claims such as the instant one. *Rivera v. State*(1981), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 375; *Moore v. State*(1980), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108; *Anaya v. State*(1980), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 161.

We further find that Respondents counsel learned that, notwithstanding and unaware of the above Court of Claims decision, attorneys for the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago and the Department of Employment Security entered into a consent decree before Federal Judge Prentice Marshall in a case entitled *Bums.*As part of such decree, the parties agreed to add language to Ben*247efit Payment Controls written administrative decisions that suggested that a person aggrieved by the decision should proceed in the Court of Claims. Respondent’s counsel informed both the Legal Assistance Foundation and the Illinois Department of Employment Security of the jurisdictional problem of which the signers of the consent decree were unaware. The Department of Employment Security is attempting to resolve this problem by administratively reissuing or rehearing those pending cases, such as the instant one, where review was erroneously sought in the Court of Claims, so that claimants will have enough time to seek review in the circuit court.

In the motion at bar, Respondent seeks dismissal without prejudice and with leave to file if the benefit control division of the Department of Employment Security does not reissue its administrative decision. Respondent does not indicate how the Court should proceed with the case should it be dismissed and then refiled. Jurisdiction cannot be vested with a court solely based on agreement of the parties and Respondent does not suggest the cited cases are wrong.

Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that this claim be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and without leave to refile.
### §148. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792

Section, acts June 25, 1910, ch. 431, §13, 36 Stat. 858; June 29, 1960, Pub. L. 86–533, §1(13), 74 Stat. 248, authorized withdrawal of lands in Indian reservations for power or reservation sites.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792, provided that the repeal made by section 704(a) is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
### THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, DC 20590



### TheHonorable Dan Hollingsworth Mayor ofRuston 401 North Trenton Street Ruston, LA 71273 Dear Mayor Hollingsworth: September 19, 2014



### Thank you for your 

### letter supporting the application submitted by Monroe Regional Airport for a grant under the U.S. Department ofTranspoiiation's Small Community Air Service Development Program. The Small Community Air Service Development Program was established to help smaller communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares and insufficient service. Under the statute, the Department may make amax.imum of40 grant awards eachyear, although no more than four may be to communities in the same State. To provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air service deficiencies, 

### the statute provides flexibility in the types ofair service development projects that can be funded. On June 30, 

### the Department issued an order setting adeadline ofJuly 31 

### for applications. As these grant requests are pending before the Depattment, l cannot comment on the merits ofany particularproposal. I 

### assure you, however, that the Department will give full and fair consideration to all proposals that have been properly filed. As is our standard practice, I 

### am placing acopy ofyour letter and this response in Docket**DOT~OST~2014~0113** 

### as acontact outside the record ofthis matter. I 

### appreciate your interest in this program.

# ~ Anthony R. 

### Foxx

# CITY OF RUSTON Mayor Dan Hollingsworth

July 29, 20 14

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx Secretary US DepartmentofTransportation 1200New Jersey A venue Washington DC 20590 Board ofAldermen Glenda Howard •District 1 Rosalind Jones ·District< Jedtflewis•District 3 Jim Pear<:e •District 4 Mar.e Riggs •Distntt 5

Subject: Monroe Regional Airport's application for funding underthe Small Community AirService DevelopmentProgram for 2014 Dear Secretary Foxx: I am writing to express my strong supportfor the application submitted by the Monroe Regional Airport in Louisiana for funding underthe Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP). The Monroe Regional Airport has submitted this application to help secure low-cost, non-stopjet service to one or more majordestinations forNortheastern Louisiana, Southern Arkansas, and Western Mississippi. As you know, the Monroe Regional Airport is an important local and regional community economic engine in Louisiana. Federal funding underthe Small Community Air Service DevelopmentProgram will go a long way in helping expandjet service to more destinations in the United States from the Monroe Regional Airport, such as a new route from Monroe to Denver. Once again, I support the Monroe Regional Airport's application underthe Small Community Air Service Development Program. Irespectfully request yourfull and fair consideration for this proposal. Thank you for yourtime and consideration in this matter.

Dan HoHingsworth DH/gl

401 NorthTrenton Street • Post Office Box 2069 ·Ruston. louisiana 71273·2069 Phone: 318.251.8621 • Fax: 318.251.8612 • Mayor@ruston.org www.ruston.org
§ 146.27 Information requirements. In order to make it possible for HUD to determine whether recipients are in compliance with the Act and this part, each recipient shall: ( a ) Keep records in a form and containing information that HUD determines is necessary;
( b ) Make information available to HUD upon request;
( c ) Permit reasonable access by HUD to the books, records, accounts and other recipient facilities and sources of information.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2529-0030) [51 FR 45266, Dec. 17, 1986, as amended at 52 FR 7408, Mar. 11, 1987]
Limited Federal Implementation Plan; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; California; North Coast Unified Air Quality 

Management District – Final Rule 

Page 15 of 16 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental protection, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone. 

July 29, 2011____ 

Dated: 

/s/_______ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator.
#### § 3.540 Advertising.

A recipient shall not in any advertising related to employment indicate preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the particular job in question.
SYNUTRA
INTERNATIONAL, INC.




Certification




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned, Liang Zhang, Chief Executive
Officer of Synutra International, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to his
knowledge, that the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      June 15, 2009
                
                
                
                /s/
      Liang ZhangName:
      Liang ZhangTitle: Chief Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.




The
foregoing certification is being furnished with the Company’s Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
### §5176. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–390, title I, §104(c)(2), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1559

Section, Pub. L. 93–288, title IV, §409, formerly §406, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 155; renumbered §409, Pub. L. 100–707, title I, §106(e), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4703, related to minimum standards for public and private structures.

A prior section 409 of Pub. L. 93–288 was renumbered section 412 by Pub. L. 100–707 and is classified to section 5179 of this title.
1

Filed 4/5/16 P. v. Brown CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL WALLACE BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C078573

(Super. Ct. No. CM040659)

Despite being represented in all relevant proceedings by retained counsel, the trial 

court imposed a $157.50 “public defender fee” during sentencing. Defendant Michael 

Wallace Brown contends this fee was improper. We shall strike the public defender fee

and affirm the judgment as modified.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A jury found defendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine, battery upon a 

peace officer, resisting a peace officer, and misdemeanor battery on a peace officer. The 

jury found defendant not guilty of possession of a billy and felony battery on a peace 
2

officer. The jury was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared on carrying a 

dirk or dagger. (Pen. Code, § 21310.) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant later pled 

no contest to a misdemeanor charge for this count.

The court sentenced defendant to five years in prison, one year for each count. 

The court also imposed various fines and fees, including a public defender fee of 

$157.50. The court asked defendant whether this amount was “reasonable” for his 

lawyer’s work. Defendant responded he “paid” his lawyer. The court then asked 

defendant whether the lawyer had done “a good job for you,” and defendant responded, 

yes. 

Throughout the proceedings, defendant was represented by Jesus Rodriguez. 

Rodriguez appeared on defendant’s behalf during all court proceedings, except during 

sentencing, when Leo Battle appeared in Rodriguez’s absence. Various clerks’ minutes, 

including the one reflecting the judgment, note Rodriguez was retained. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court improperly imposed a $157.50 public defender 

fee, and the People agree.

Penal Code section 987.8 permits a trial court to order a defendant who has 

received legal assistance at public expense to reimburse some or all of the county’s costs. 

Because there is no evidence defendant was at any point represented by a public defender 

or appointed counsel, the $157.50 fee was unauthorized.

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to prepare an amended 

abstract of judgment that omits the $157.50 public defender fee under Penal Code 

section 987.8, and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
3

/s/ 

Robie, J.

We concur:

/s/ 

Nicholson, Acting P. J.

/s/ 

Renner, J.
### §475. Annual installments on entries and contracts prior to August 13, 1914

Any person whose land or entry, prior to August 13, 1914, became subject to the terms and conditions of the reclamation law shall pay the construction charge, or the portion of the construction charge remaining unpaid, in twenty annual installments, the first of which shall become due and payable on December 1 of the year in which the public notice affecting his land is issued, and subsequent installments on December 1 of each year thereafter. The first four of such installments shall each be 2 per centum, the next two installments shall each be 4 per centum, and the next fourteen each 6 per centum of the total construction charge, or the portion of the construction charge unpaid at the beginning of such installments.

Any person whose land or entry prior to August 13, 1914, became subject to the reclamation law, who desires to secure the benefits of the extension of the period of payments provided by sections 373, 414, 418, 435 to 437, 440, 443, 464, 465, 469, 471, 472, 475, 477 to 481, 492, 493, 494 to 497 and 499 of this title, shall, within six months after the issuance of the first public notice hereunder affecting his land or entry, notify the Secretary of the Interior, in the manner to be prescribed by said Secretary, of his acceptance of all the terms and conditions of such sections, and thereafter his lands or entry shall be subject to all of the provisions of such sections: Provided, That upon sufficient showing the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, permit notice of acceptance of all the terms and conditions of such sections to be filed at any time after the time limit hereinbefore fixed for filing such acceptance shall have expired, conditioned, however, that where the applicant for such acceptance is in arrears on construction charges, he shall at the time of acceptance pay such installments of the construction charge as he would have been required to pay had he accepted the benefits of such sections within the time limit hereinabove fixed, plus the penalties that would have accrued had he so accepted, and such applicant shall thereafter be upon the same status that he would have been had he accepted the provisions of such sections within the time limit hereinabove fixed, and thereafter the lands or entry of any such persons so filing such notice of acceptance shall be subject to all the provisions of such sections.

(Aug. 13, 1914, ch. 247, §§2, 14, 38 Stat. 687, 690; July 26, 1916, ch. 257, 39 Stat. 390.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The reclamation law, referred to in text, is defined in section 472 of this title.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: March 31, 2008
    /s/ Crit S. DeMentName:
    Crit S. DeMentTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner
### §1600f. Certification of compliance

The Secretary of the Interior shall, on behalf of each Federal agency concerned, make written certification that each agency has complied with the provisions of this chapter during each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985. Such certification shall be submitted on an annual basis to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate on or before January 15 of each fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 99–450, §8, Oct. 8, 1986, 100 Stat. 1134.)

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

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions in this section relating to the requirement that the Secretary submit written certifications on an annual basis to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and the 6th item on page 113 of House Document No. 103–7.
exh101111110.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 




 


November 11, 2010












Mr. Fred Weber



  







MIPS Board Compensation







Dear Fred,







The Compensation and Nominating Committee of the Board of Directors of MIPS Technologies, Inc. (“MIPS”), has recommended your nomination to the MIPS Board of Directors.  We are pleased to extend this nomination and want to take this opportunity to outline the compensation you will receive if the Board confirms your appointment and you accept.







Compensation for the MIPS Board of Directors will include the following:








	
·  

	
An annual Board retainer of $25,000 to be paid in quarterly installments in connection with our quarterly board meetings;













	
·  

	
A Board meeting fee of $1,500 for each Board meeting attended (in person or by telephone);













	
·  

	
A Committee meeting fee of $1,000 for each Committee meeting attended (in person or by telephone).












Subject to authorization and approval of the MIPS Board of Directors, the terms of this letter and compliance with all applicable federal and state securities laws, upon joining the Board you will be granted a stock award of $70,000 in restricted stock units (RSUs) under the terms of the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended, and the applicable Award Documents.  The RSUs shall vest 50% after one year and 50% after two years.







Additionally, once you have been a Director for at least six months, you will be granted at or about the time of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders an annual renewal award of $35,000 in RSUs that vest 100% after one year, under the terms of the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended, and the applicable Award Documents.







Fred, we are looking forward to your giving us the benefit of your wisdom and time, and for joining forces with the other Board members to assist us in building a strong and successful company.












Sincerely,







MIPS Technologies, Inc.







/s/ ANTHONY B. HOLBROOK









Anthony B. Holbrook


Chairman of the Board

















AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

















By:  /s/ FRED WEBER_______________________


Name:    Mr. Fred Weber












Date:   November 11, 2010
### Geologic Map Database of Texas

By: Douglas B. StoeserNancy ShockGregory N. GreenGayle M. DumonceauxWilliam D. Heran

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds170

#### Links

- More Information:                               - **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
  - **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html) 
- Metadata:  **Metadata**                            (txt)
- Spatial Data:  **Spatial Data**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
| 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 fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|              | Darwin      Resources, Inc. |                         |
|-------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------|
|              |                        |                         |   |
| November 14, 2008 | By:                         | /s/      Mark Rentschler     |   |
|              | Name:        | Mark      Rentschler         |   |
|              | Title:       | President      and Principal |   |
|              |                        | Executive      Officer       |   |
|              |                        |                              |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Oliver J. Rice, Appellant.

On the call of the calendar, on motion by respondent, appeal dismissed. Appellant failed to comply with an order of this court, dated January 30, 1962, requiring him to perfect the appeal for the May 1962 Term. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 92.68 Foreign Service fees and incidental costs in the taking of evidence.

The fees for the taking of evidence by officers of the Foreign Service are as prescribed by the Tariff or Fees, Foreign Service of the United States of America (§ 22.1 of this chapter), under the caption “Services Relating to the Taking of Evidence,” unless the service is performed for official use, which comes under the caption “Exemption for Federal Agencies and Corporations” of the same Tariff. See § 22.6 of this chapter concerning the requirement for advance deposit of estimated fees. When the party on whose behalf the evidence is sought or his local representative is not present to effect direct payment of such incidental costs as postage or travel of witnesses, the advance deposit required by the officer shall be in an amount estimated as sufficient to cover these in addition to the fees proper. The same rule shall apply to charges for interpreting or for the taking and transcribing of a stenographic record when performed commercially rather than by staff members at Tariff of Fee rates.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

HAND-CARRIED AND BY FAX (202) 493-5142 

September 14,2015 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Appellate Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

BOO Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 5 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

Re: In the Matter of Regent Aerospace Corporation, Docket Nos, F AA-20 13-

0851 and 2013-0952 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Respondent, through its counsel, Jeffrey Clement, has agreed to a 14-day extension of 

time for the FAA to file its appeal brief in the above-referenced case, The appeal brief, 

which is currently due on September 21,2015, will be due on October 5, 2015. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.233(c)(1), the FAA requests that the FAA Decisionmaker 

grant the extension of time. 

Sincerely, ~' 1 

~-

1 . ' ' 

Susan S. Caron 

Manager, Appellate Practice 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Tele: (202) 267-7721 

Fax: (202) 267-5106 

Susan.caron@faa.gov 

cc: Jeffrey Clement, Esq. 

Hoff Law Group 

Suite 330 

135 S. LaSalle Street 

Chicago, IL 60603-4134 

Fax: (312) 853-3924