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

KS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLGA ESTELA BARRERA ZAPETA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72084

Agency No. A071-576-711

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Olga Estela Barrera Zapeta, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro

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

motion to reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

JAN 13 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KS/Research 2 07-72084

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider,

Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrera Zapeta’s motion as a

motion to reconsider. The motion failed to specify an error of fact or law with

respect to the BIA’s prior determination that her February 1, 2006, motion to

reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). 

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely the motion

as a motion to reopen where it was filed 3 years after the BIA’s order dismissing

the underlying appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.

INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Barrera Zapeta’s remaining

contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 7 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                  S. 7

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 51, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into leases of 
               non-excess property of the Administration.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``NASA Enhanced Use Leasing Extension 
Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LEASES OF NON-EXCESS 
              PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
              ADMINISTRATION.

    Section 20145(g) of title 51, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2018'' and inserting ``December 31, 2019''.

            Passed the Senate December 6, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                  S. 7

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 51, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into leases of 
               non-excess property of the Administration.
```
#### Holleman *vs.*Holleman.

The affidavits *pro*and *con*being conflicting, the discretion of the chancellor exercised in granting the injunction will not be controlled.

Warner, Chief Justice.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-23-00442-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-004523-1

Before Walker, J; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

CAROL JEAN WOMACK, Appellant

V.

EDWARDS ZUBIZARRRETA PARTNERSHIP, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On January 4, 2024, and January 29, 2024, we notified Appellant, in accordance 

with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless 

Appellant paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellant has

not done so. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because Appellant has not complied with a procedural requirement and the 

Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,1 we dismiss the appeal.2 See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: February 22, 2024

1See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases 

in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, 

Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).

2The style of this appeal in this court reflects Appellee’s name as “Edwards 

Zubizarrreta Partnership” because that is how Appellant presented Appellee’s name in 

her notice of appeal. However, the trial court clerk’s record indicates that Appellee’s 

name may be “Edwards Zubizarreta Partnership.”
#### TATE TERRACE REALTY INVESTORS, INC. v. CURRITUCK COUNTY

No. 467P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 212

Petition by petitioner for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 December 1997. Motion by respondents (Currituck and Board of Commissioners) to dismiss notice of appeal allowed 4 December 1997.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Mandalay Digital Group, Inc.; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                              
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Date: July 29, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Peter Adderton           
|                    |  |  |  | Peter Adderton               
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
### §79d. Limitation on administrative and supervisory costs

The total administrative and supervisory costs which may be incurred under this chapter for services performed (excluding standardization, compliance, and foreign monitoring activities) for each of the fiscal years 1989 through 2025 shall not exceed 30 percent of the total costs for such activities carried out by the Secretary for such year.

(Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. B, §7D, as added Pub. L. 100–518, §2(3), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2585; amended Pub. L. 103–156, §2, Nov. 24, 1993, 107 Stat. 1525; Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §293(a)(8), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3237; Pub. L. 106–472, title I, §105, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2060; Pub. L. 109–83, §1(a), Sept. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2053; Pub. L. 114–54, title III, §301(d), Sept. 30, 2015, 129 Stat. 520; Pub. L. 116–216, §4, Dec. 11, 2020, 134 Stat. 1048.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2020—Pub. L. 116–216 substituted "2025" for "2020".

2015—Pub. L. 114–54 substituted "2020" for "2015".

2005—Pub. L. 109–83 substituted "2015" for "2005".

2000—Pub. L. 106–472 substituted "2005" for "2000" and "30 percent" for "40 per centum".

1994—Pub. L. 103–354 substituted "Secretary" for "Service".

1993—Pub. L. 103–156 substituted "services performed" for "inspection and weighing" and "2000" for "1993".

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

#### Effective Date of 2000 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–472 effective as if enacted Sept. 30, 2000, see section 111 of Pub. L. 106–472, set out as a note under section 79 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1993 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–156 effective as of Sept. 30, 1993, see section 16(b) of Pub. L. 103–156, set out as a note under section 75 of this title.

#### Effective and Termination Dates

That part of section 2 of Pub. L. 100–518 which provided that section was effective for the period Oct. 1, 1988, through Sept. 30, 1993, inclusive, was repealed by Pub. L. 103–156, §§13(a), 16(b), Nov. 24, 1993, 107 Stat. 1529, 1530, eff. Sept. 30, 1993.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

THE GENERAL COUNSEL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Deputy General Counsel, Departmental and Legislative Service

Deputy General Counsel, Postsecondary and Regulatory Service

Deputy General Counsel, Program Service ◄▬▬

FROM: Kent D. Talbert

SUBJECT: Redelegation of Authority to Review and Approve Settlements

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation from the Secretary EA/EG/109, 

certified April 17, 2008, I redelegate to you, and anyone serving for you in an 

acting capacity, the authority to review and concur in any agency settlement 

involving the final resolution of any litigation, involving but not limited to 

administrative or Federal court litigation, in which the Department shall make

monetary payment for damages, fees, costs, or other relief. This redelegation 

authorizes each addressee to to review and concur in any above-described agency 

settlement within their respective areas of responsibility. 

Unless otherwise specified in future delegations of authority, amendments to the

authority delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

 

None.

III. REDELEGATION

You may redelegate this authority.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification of the Department's Principal 

Delegations Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this 

authority.
Page 2 – Redelegation of Authority to Review and Approve Settlements

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by the addressees 

prior to certification of this delegation.

____________/s/___________

 Kent D. Talbert

OGC Concurrence and Date: /s/ David Berthiuame. 5/12/2008

Certified Date: 5/12/2008

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EG/EGB/110
1516.303-76 Fee on cost-sharing contracts by subcontractors. ( a ) Subcontractors under prime cost-sharing contracts who do not have a significant direct interest in the contract or who are not in a position to gain long-term benefits from the contract may earn a fee.
( b ) Contracting Officers should be alert to a potential vulnerability for the Government under cost-sharing contracts when evaluating proposed subcontractors or consenting to a subcontract during contract administration, where the subcontractor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the prime. The vulnerability consists of the subsidiary earning a large amount of fee, which could be returned to the prime through stock dividends or other intercompany transactions. This could circumvent the objective of a cost-sharing contract.
[61 FR 14505, Apr. 2, 1996]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,637
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  158,322
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    215,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               381,501
<PP&E>                                         331,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 780,066
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,454
<BONDS>                                        316,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<COMMON>                                        12,832
<OTHER-SE>                                     211,076
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   780,066
<SALES>                                        533,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               533,669
<CGS>                                          452,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  452,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,168
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,062
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,859
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,859
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.31


[EMERSON LOGO]
EMERSON RADIO CORP. 9 ENTIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 430,
PARSIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07054-0430  (973)884-5800



                          Effective as of May 10, 2006




Via hand delivery
-----------------

Mr. John D. Florian, CPA
106 Sunset Road
Pompton Plains, NJ 07444

Dear John:

Pursuant to your recent discussions with Emerson management, this will
confirm, effective as of the above date, your promotion to Deputy
Chief Financial Officer of Emerson Radio Corp. and the continuation of your at
will employment with the Company, at an annual salary of $135,000.00,
payable in accordance with the Company's payroll practices. You will retain
your title as Controller and be eligible for a bonus at Emerson's discretion on
an annual basis.

Naturally, you will be entitled to a continuation of your normal employee
benefits including medical coverage, long term disability coverage and life
insurance, 401K, holidays, vacation, etc. as outlined in Emerson's Employee
Benefits & Practices Booklet, a copy of which you have already received and
the terms of which have been and will continue to be applicable to your
employment. This agreement supercedes any previous agreement.

If the above accurately reflects your understanding, please sign where
indicated below and return to my attention. If you have any questions regarding
the above, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. On behalf of
everyone at Emerson, congratulations on your promotion!

Sincerely,                               Agreed and Accepted:

/s/ Adrian Ma                            /s/ John D. Florian
-------------------------------          --------------------------
Adrian Ma                                John D. Florian
Chief Executive Officer and              Date: May 10, 2006
Chairman of the Board

cc: G. Jurick
#### § 74.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to implement the provisions of Pub. L. 763, 84th Congress (70 Stat. 608), relating to the appointment of doctors of osteopathy as medical officers.
MEMORANDUM

Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meeting

From: Martha Keating

To: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2008

- 0699

Date: Ju ly 1 5 , 2015

On Ju ly 9 , 2015, representatives of EPA attended a meeting with several Environmental Groups

. The meeting was held by videoconference. Attendees discussed the ozone National Ambient Air

Quality Standards rulemaking. The Environmental Groups provided materials for the meeting

and are attached.

The following is a list of attendees and their affiliation:

Name Affil iation

Molly Rauch Moms Clean Air Force

Mandy Warner Environmental Defense Fund

Terry McGuire Sierra Club

Sara Chieffo L eague of Conservation Voters

John Walke N atural Resources Defense Council

Stephanie Maddix Earth j ustice

Janet McCabe EPA /Office of Air and Radiation

Steve Page EPA/ Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

Mike Koerber EPA/OAQPS

Martha Keating EPA/OAQPS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EARTHCOMBER, LLC,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

PRIMEDIA, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-cv-0390

Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr.

Magistrate Judge Kim

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff Earthcomber, LLC, by its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action, 

without prejudice, against Defendant Primedia, Inc.

Dated: March 12, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

EARTHCOMBER, LLC

By: ______________________

 One of its Attorneys

Joseph J. Siprut 

jsiprut@siprut.com

Aleksandra M. S. Vold 

avold@siprut.com

SIPRUT PC

122 South Michigan Avenue

Suite 1850

Chicago, Illinois 60603

312.588.1440

Fax: 312.427.1850

4820-1459-7135, v. 1

Case: 1:12-cv-00390 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed this 12th day of March, 2012, via 

the electronic filing system of the Northern District of Illinois, which will automatically serve all 

counsel of record.

_________________________

Joseph J. Siprut

Case: 1:12-cv-00390 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:61
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benjamin Webb, Appellant.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered October 4, 1977, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, unanimously modified, on the law, to reverse the conviction of reckless endangerment, dismiss said charge, vacate all sentences heretofore imposed and to remand the matter for resentencing on all the remaining charges, and otherwise affirmed. We reverse defendant’s conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree and dismiss that charge, i.e., Count No. 3 of the indictment. At the moment Police Officer Stone, standing above the crowd on an elevated subway station, observed defendant fire a revolver, defendant and his brother were surrounded by a hostile, menacing group. Whether the shot was fired by defendant into the crowd or over the heads of those in front of him was a matter in dispute at the trial. No person, however, was struck by a bullet. The evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to warrant submission of that count. Reckless endangerment in the first degree, requires proof that a defendant "under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life * * * recklessly engage[d] in conduct which create[d] a grave risk of death to another person” (Penal Law, § 120.25). In the circumstances at bar, it cannot be said that defendant, in firing the shots to protect himself from the menacing crowd, evinced a "depraved indifference to human life” (see *People v France,*57 AD2d 432, 433-435). Nor can it be said that defendant at that time acted "recklessly” (Penal Law, § 15.05, subd 3), that is, with a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in that situation (see *People v Montanez,*41 NY2d 53, 57; cf. *People v France, supra,*pp 434, 436). It is apparent that defendant’s sentences on all charges were related to the trial court’s finding at sentence that defendant was a "direct threat to the community”, a finding at least in part based on defendant’s reckless endangerment conviction. Accordingly, the sentences heretofore imposed on defendant are vacated, and the matter remanded to the trial court for resentencing on each of the other charges, under which defendant’s convictions are affirmed. The other contentions of defendant have been considered and found to be without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
First Department,

March, 1964*

(March 19, 1964)

#### Hyman D. Siegel v. The People *of*the State of New York.

*

 Not published with other decisions of March 19, 1964, 20 A D 2d 771. — [Rep.

Motion for an order pursuant to CPLR (5704, subd. [a]) vacating any order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and for other relief denied. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
No. 7934.

#### Sauer *v.*Sauer.

(Decided October 13, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Eeilher & Eeilher*and *Mr. Ellis B. Gregg,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. P. E. Eumler*and *Mr. Walter A. DeGamp,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed on authority of *Pretzinger*v. *Pretzinger,*45 Ohio St., 452.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.
#### Taller & Cooper, Inc., v. Electronic Signal Company, Inc.

Motion for leave to reargue denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### §421a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 3, 1926, ch. 769, §2, 44 Stat. 840, appropriated $25,000 to effectuate the purposes of former section 421 of this title, and was omitted from the Code as obsolete.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The Pintail coal bed andBarrier Bar G-- : a model for coal of barrier bar-lagoon origin, UpperCretaceous Almond Formation, Rock Springs Coal Field, Wyoming**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.16:1398
Item Number:0624 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001051367
 
April 2, 2018
#### 1303.704 Policy.

The designee authorized to declare void and rescind contracts, in cases in which there has been a final conviction for any violation of 18 U.S.C. 201-224, is set forth in CAM 1301.70.