alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

October 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60191

Summary Calendar

ANDREW WEST,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A78 239 125)

--------------------

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Andrew West-Ebi petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) opinion that affirmed the decision of

the immig ration judge denying him (1) asylum, (2) withholding of

removal, and (3) relief under the Convention Against Torture. As

West does not specifically challenge the immigration judge’s (IJ)

denial of his application for withholding of removal or his request

from relief under the Convention Against Torture, t h e issues are2

deemed abandoned. S ee Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS

, 809 F.2d 1050

,

1052 (5th Cir. 1986).

As for asylum, West contends that the IJ erred in finding

West’s testimony not credible and erred in requiring that he

provide documentary evidence in support of his applicat ion. W e

shall uphold the IJ’s determination that West is not eligible for

asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence. G omez-Mejia v.

INS

, 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995). We shall not substitute our

judgment for that of the BIA or the IJ with respect to findings of

credibility of witnesses or findings of fact based on credibility

determinations. C hun v. INS

, 40 F. 3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) . A

credibility determination may be overturn ed only if doing so is

compelled by the record. L opez De Jesus v. INS

, 312 F.3d 155, 161

(5th Cir. 2002).

West has not demonstrated that the record compels a conclusion

contrary to that of the IJ. Therefore, he has not provided a basis

for us to replace the IJ’s determinations of credibility or

ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations with

our own. As West’s credibility was impugned during the deportation

proceedings

, the IJ did not err in requiring West to provide

corroborating evidence. M atter of S-M-J

, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722, 725-

26 (BIA 1997); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a).

Our review of the record demonstrates that the IJ’s

deter mination that West failed to demonstrate his entitlement to

asylum is supported by substantial evidence. S ee 8 C.F.R. §3

208.13(a). We therefore deny his petition for review. The

Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative,

to hold briefing in abeyance is denied.

PETITION DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                             THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.
                       GENERAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
                               (1998 RESTATEMENT)

                                SECOND AMENDMENT

     The TJX Companies, Inc. hereby amends its General Deferred Compensation
Plan (1998 Restatement), effective as of January 1, 2000, by deleting the
definition of "Interest Rate" (Section 2.G.) and replacing it with the
following:

     "G.  "Interest Rate" for a Plan Year (the "Plan Year of reference") shall
          be determined as follows. First, there shall be determined for each
          month of the preceding Plan Year a rate equal to the yield upon the
          issue of United States Treasury Notes which has a period remaining to
          maturity of not less than, but closest to, ten years after the last
          trading day of such month, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal next
          published after such last trading day. If there is no such quote for a
          month, the E.C.C. shall determine a rate of interest for the month.
          The twelve rates so determined for the preceding Plan Year shall then
          be averaged, and the average so determined shall be the Interest Rate
          for the Plan Year of reference."


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The TJX Companies, Inc. has caused this instrument of
amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 25 day of January,
2000.

                                             THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.


                                         By: /s/ Donald G. Campbell
                                             -------------------------------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AC alternating current ACEEE American Council for Energy Efficient Economy AEC Annual Energy Consumption AEO Annual Energy Outlook AWG American wire gauge BES Business Expenses Surv ey (U.S. Census Bureau) BOM bill of materials C Celsius CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule CAPM Capital Asset Pricing Model CD certificate of deposit CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency CGS cost of goods sold CO carbon monoxide CO 2 carbon dioxide CRML cold-rolled magnetic laminations CSA cross-sectional area CSCR capacitor-start, capacitor-run motor CSIR capacitor-start, induction-run motor CSL candidate standard level DC direct current DF discount factor DOE U.S. Department of Energy EC equipment class EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE) EIA Energy Information Administration (DOE) EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 EMERF Electric Motor Educat ion and Research Foundation EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPACT Energy Policy Act EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 ERP equity risk premium FEMP Federal Energy Management Program (U.S. DOE)

A-1GM gross margin GRIM Government Regulatory Impact Model Hg mercury HP horsepower HVAC heating ventilating and air conditioning IEC International Electrotechnical Commission ImSET Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model I-O input-output kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt-hour LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LCC life-cycle cost LSC labor-scaling costs M* M15, M19, M36, M47, M56 - grade of core steel MIA manufacturer impact analysis MPC manufacturer production cost MSP manufacturer selling price NAICS North American Indus try Classification System NCI Navigant Consulting, Inc NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMS National Energy Modeling System NEMS-BT National Energy Modeling System - Building Technologies NES national energy savings NFPA National Fire Protection Association NIA national impact analysis NLSC non-labor-scaling costs NOPM notice of public meeting NOPR notice of proposed rulemaking NO X nitrogen oxides NPV net present value OEM original equipment manufacturer OMB Office of Management and Budget PBIP plastic bonded iron powder PBP payback period PM particulate matter PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

A-2A-3 PSC permanent-split capacitor motor R&D research and development RMS root mean square RPM revolutions per minute SBA Small Business Administration SCF Survey of Consumer Finances SEC Securities and Exchange Commission SMMA Motors and Motion Association SO 2 sulfur dioxide TSD technical support document U.S. United States UEC unit energy consumption WACC weighted average cost of capital

μ F microfarads
Applicability of Tax: General sales & use tax- Applies to all goods and services taxable under state law. 

Administrative Costs: 3% of gross collections withheld by the state for administration of the tax. 

Credits or Exemptions: Tax subject to same credits & exemptions available under state sales & use tax law 

Subsequent Amendments and Amendment Purpose: 

1. Date: ---------- Amending Ordinance No.-----------

Purpose of Amendment: 

2. Date: ---------- Amending Ordinance No.-----------

Purpose of Amendment: 

3. Date: ---------- Amending Ordinance No.-----------

Purpose of Amendment: 

4. Date: - --------- Amending Ordinance No.-----------

Purpose of Amendment: 

Is the tax on aviation fuel distributed for airport related purposes: Yes or No ) 0 for belief that the tax is grandfathered. If No, state reason do .5 Jtfd5cQu.t:JJ/ ~u851ltltl1'VG C#-A)tr£ 

The state of Arkansas administers local taxes for all cities and counties in this state and commits that the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration will notify the FAA of any subsequent amendments to this tax that could affect grandfathered status. 

n H. Theis, Assistant Revenue Commissioner 

):2-)J,/)_5 

Date ' 
EMERGENCY CLAUSE AND FOB OI'HER PURPOSF...S, 

l'IHEREAS, Tnere is a great need for imnediate imProvements of munj.cipal 

services and a stable source of revenue to finance such vital local services; 

and 

WHERFAS, The anticipated city expenditures for 1982 exceed the 1982 anticipated city revenues by approximately $200,000, if normal city services are 

continued at the present level, and 

~~S, Act 990 of 1975, as amended, provides for the local option of 

adortion of a cjty-wide sales and use tax; 

NOl-l THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CI'l'Y BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 'Jl-IE CITY 

Ol' ARKADFJ:J'HIA, ARKANSAS : 

Section 1. Levy of Sales and Use Tax. As authorized by Act 990 of 1975 

of the Acts of Arkansas, as amended, there is hereby levied a sales and use tax 

at the rate of one percent (1%) on the receipts from the sale at retail vii thjrl 

the City of Arkadelphia, Arkansas, on all such items which are sub.ject to taxation under the Arlcansas Gross Receipts Tax Act, Act 336 of' J.Qlll of the Acts of 

ArJ.cansas ~ as amendect. 

Section ;'2, Single Transaction Rebate. Taxes in excess of $:.?5.00 pairt to 

the City on a sinp;le transaction shall be rebated to the purchaser of the item 

sub,ject to taxation under .Section 1 hereof. 'Ihe'' C:Lty Clerl< of the City of A.rka-
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 15

- 00246

- CV
Marco Antonio HERNANDEZ , Appellant

v. L isa HERNANDEZ , Appellee From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas Trial Court No. CC

- 10

- 03 Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 3, 2015
DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION When appellant filed this appeal, he was required to pay a $195.00 filing fee. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § § 51.207(b)(1) , 51.941(a); see also id

. §§ 51.208, 51.0051; T EXAS S UPREME C OURT O RDER R EGARDING F EES C HARGED I N C IVIL C ASES I N THE S UPREME C OURT , THE C OURTS

OF A PPEALS , AND B EFORE THE J UDICIAL P ANEL ON M ULTIDISTRICT L ITIGATION (Misc. Docket No.
13

- 91 27 , Aug. 16 , 20 13 ). Appellant did not pay the required filing fee when he filed the notice of appeal. The clerk of this court notified appellant of this deficiency by lette r dated April 23, 2015 , and advised appellant the filing fee was due no later than May 8, 2015

. On May 12, 2015 , when04

- 15

- 00246

- CV

- 2

- the fee remained unpaid, we ordered appellant, not later than May 22, 2015, to either (1) pay the applicable filing fee , or (2) provide w ritten proof to this court that he is indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 5 ( “ A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

— at the time an item is presented for filing

— whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court
order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just. ” ). The court advised appellant that if he failed to respond satisfactorily within the time ordered, the appeal would be
dismissed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3. The filing fee has not been paid , and appellant has not otherwis e responded to our May 12 , 20 15 order. We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. We further order that appellee recover her costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant

.

PER CURIAM
#### In the Matter of Jack C. Rosenstein, Appellant, v. Richard Curran et al., Constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Freeport, Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, to direct the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Freeport to grant to petitioner a variance, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 20, 1963, which denied the application. Order affirmed, without costs. In effect, the petitioner sought permission to vary the application of the local Building Code to his newly completed building. The building violated a provision of this code, and not any provision of the local Zoning Ordinance. Neither the statute (Village Law, § 179-b) nor the Building Code vested authority in the Board of Zoning Appeals to vary the application of the Building Code (cf. *Matter of Cassety [Dobson],*255 App. Div. 928; *Matter of Village of Is. Park*v. *Bulk Plants,*258 App. Div. 185). In any event, the record discloses that petitioner’s proof was not sufficient to sustain granting of the variance sought and that the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals in denying such relief was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Uletas, Respondent, v. William Elliott et al., Appellants. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the carrier from an award of workmen’s compensation benefits. On the first appeal (18 A D 2d 849), the court found substantial evidence to sustain the happening of an accident, but reversed and remitted to permit the board “to pass upon the question whether or not claimant has demonstrated circumstances sufficient to excuse his failure to comply with the notice provisions of the statute”. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 18.) Upon remittal, the board found: “The employer was not prejudiced, as the claimant was treated by a physician on the date of the injury and the employer had knowledge that the claimant required such treatment”. The only issue on this appeal is whether the finding of the board is sufficient to justify excusing the claimant’s failure to give timely notice. Prejudice, under the statute, ordinarily results from failure of the claimant to receive prompt medical attention to the detriment of the employer and failure to afford the employer opportunity to make a proper investigation. There can be no question on this record as to prompt medical attention because not only did the employee receive it on the day of the accident but the employer advised him to do so. As to proper investigation, the employer testified in regard to the nature of the work and the general duties of the claimant on the day of the happening of the accident as did two other employees and the only issue was credibility which was determined by the board in favor of the claimant. Additionally, reports were made by the claimant’s doctor and electrocardiograms were received in evidence taken the day of the accident and three days subsequent thereto, which were available for the appellants’ doctors to review and to use in attempting to establish that there was no causal relationship between the accident and the heart injury. There was substantial evidence to justify the finding that the employer was not prejudiced. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

2023 Negotiated Rulemaking Student Debt Relief Committee

Session 3, December 11-12, 2023

Agenda

December 11, 2023

I. Welcome, Opening Remarks, Administrative Business

II. Old Business Wrap Up from Session 2

III. Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text(Technical Corrections in Subparts A, C, E and F of 

Part 30)

IV. Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text new Subpart G § 30.80 (Waiver of Federal 

student loan debts)

V. Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text § 30.81 (Waiver when the current balance 

exceeds the original principal balance for low-income borrowers on an IDR Plan)

VI. Draft of Amendatory Regulatory Text in § 30.82 (Waiver when the current balance 

exceeds the original principal balance for borrowers on the SAVE plan)

VII. Lunch Break

VIII. Draft of Amendatory Regulatory Text in § 30.83 (Waiver when a loan first entered 

repayment 20 or 25 years ago)

IX. Draft of Amendatory Regulatory Text in § 30.84 (Waiver when a loan is eligible for 

forgiveness based upon repayment plan) and § 30.85 (Waiver when a loan is eligible 

for a targeted forgiveness opportunity)

X. Wrap Up and Questions

XI. Break

XII. Public Comment

December 12, 2023

I. Welcome, Opening Remarks, Administrative Business

II. Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text § 30.86 (Waiver based upon Secretarial actions)

III. Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text § 30.87 (Waiver following a closure prior to 

Secretarial actions)

IV. Lunch Break 

V. Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text § 30.88 (Waiver for closed gainful employment 

programs with high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings)

VI. Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text § 30.89 (Waiver when the current balance 

exceeds the original principal balance) 
VII. Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text § 30.90 (Waiver when the current balance 

exceeds the original principal balance for low-income borrowers not on an IDR plan)

VIII. Draft Amendatory text § 682.403 (Waiver of FFEL Program loan debt)

IX. Final Consensus on Regulatory Text

X. Additional Discussion on Hardship
## Required Information for the Pell Grant and Direct Loan Programs

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Compliance Supplement directs compliance auditors to provide Required Information for the Pell Grant and Direct Loan Programs directly to Federal Student Aid, Director, Financial Management Group, at FSAPellandDLReporting@ed.gov no later than 60 days after the Data Collection Form and reporting package are submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. The attached information template is provided to compliance auditors to facilitate reporting. As instructed in the Compliance Supplement, compliance auditors should use this worksheet to submit to FSA the Required Information for the Pell Grant and Direct Loan Programs.

Template for OMB Compliance Supplement Required Information for the Pell Grant and Direct Loan Programs    M​​S Excel (28KB)

## Improper Payments

### ED Documents/Reports:​

#### Payment Recapture Audits

-  FY 2014 Report of the Department of Education’s Payment Recapture Audits ​​ 
-  FY 2012 Report of the Department of Education's Payment Recapture Audits ​​ 
-  FY 2011 Report of the Department of Education’s Payment Recapture Audits ​​ 

####  ​Improper Payments​​

- FY 2023 Department of Education Improper Payment Estimation Methodologies   MS Word (40KB) 
- FY 2023 Federal Student Aid Improper Payment Estimation Methodologies   MS Word (55KB) 
- FY 2022 Department of Education Improper Payment Estimation Methodologies   MS Word ​(40KB) 
- FY 2022 Federal Student Aid Improper Payment Estimation Methodologies   MS Word​ (49KB)
- FY 2021 Department of Education Improper Payment Estimation Methodologies   MS Word ​(53KB) 
- FY 2021 Federal Student Aid Improper Payment Estimation Methodologies   MS Word​ (38KB) 
- FY 2020 Department of Education Improper Payment Estimation Methodologies          PDF (179KB) 
- FY 2020 Federal Student Aid Improper Payment Estimation Methodologies          PDF (229KB)
- FY 2019 Department of Education Improper Payment Estimation Methodologies          PDF (48KB)  |        MS Word (42KB)

### Federal Sites and Documents:

-    ​PaymentAccuracy.gov 
-  Report fraud, waste or abuse involving Department of Education funds or programs ​
Exhibit 4.5 Notice to Holders dated November 10, 1999

Designs, Inc.

                                  DESIGNS, INC.
                           Notice to Holders of Rights
                                November 10, 1999

Please be advised that on October 11, 1999, the Board of Directors of Designs,
Inc. (the "Company") acted to terminate the Shareholder Rights Agreement dated
as of May 1, 1995, as amended, between the Company and its rights agent (the
"Agreement"). In connection therewith, the Company will redeem all issued and
outstanding Rights owned by the Company's stockholders of the close of business
on Wednesday, November 10, 1999 (the "Redemption Record Date"). As you may know,
the Rights trade one for one with the shares of the Company's Common Stock and
the number of Rights you own is equal to the number of shares of Common Stock
you own. Following the Redemption Record Date, the Rights will terminate and be
of no further effect, except that stockholders will be entitled to receive $0.01
per Right owned as of the Redemption Record Date (the "Redemption Price"). The
Company anticipates that holders of Rights as of the close of business on the
Redemption Record Date will be paid the Redemption Price in cash on or about
Monday, November 15, 1999.

If you have any questions concerning the Company's redemption of the Rights or
the termination of the Agreement, please contact the Company's transfer agent,
Boston Equiserve, by calling (781) 575-3400.


Designs, Inc.
Corporate Headquarters
66 B Street, Needham, MA 02194   (617)444-7222 Fax (617) 444-8999
Opinion issued January 7, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00961-CV

———————————

CHARLIE WILLIE JONES, JR., Appellant

V.

CHRISTOHPER R. FUNK, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1064842

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Charlie Willie Jones, Jr., proceeding pro se, timely filed a notice 

of appeal on November 17, 2015, from the order denying writ of re-entry, signed by 

the trial court on November 17, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. However, appellant 

has neither paid the required filing fee nor established indigence for purposes of 
2

appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 

51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041(1) (West 2013), § 101.0411 (West Supp. 2015);

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

(Tex. Aug. 28, 2015).

After being notified by the Clerk of this Court on December 14, 2015, that 

this appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee, appellant filed a

“Request to Dismiss Appeal” on December 16, 2015, because “this is not a final 

order.” TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.1(a)(1), 42.3. We construe this request as a motion to 

dismiss on the ground that the order appealed from was not a final order. Also, 

though there is no certificate of conference with the motion, this motion has been on 

file with the Court for more than 10 days and no party has responded to the motion. 

See id. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2). No other party has filed a notice of appeal and no 

opinion has issued. See id. 42.1(a)(1), (c).

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.