alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14635-001]
 On September 20, 2019, the Village of Gouverneur, New York (Village of Gouverneur) filed an application for an original minor license to continue operating the existing, unlicensed, 160-kilowatt Gouverneur Hydroelectric Project No. 14635 (Gouverneur Project or project). The project is located on the Oswegatchie River in the Village of Gouverneur, St. Lawrence County, New York. The project does not occupy federal land. In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on November 19, 2020, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to license the Gouverneur Project. The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision. The application will be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone
Target dateCommission issues EA
May 2021.1Comments on EA
June 2021.
 Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Jody Callihan at (202) 502-8278 or 
                    *jody.callihan@ferc.gov.* Dated: January 22, 2021. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1 year of the federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA for the Gouverneur Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's regulations, the EA must be issued within 1 year of the issuance date of this notice. Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2021-01869 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2508

 LT Case No. 2023-CA-002346-A

_____________________________

CHARLES CARTER,

Appellant,

v.

PEYTON C. GRINNELL, AS 

SHERIFF OF LAKE COUNTY 

FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County.

James R. Baxley, Judge.

Charles Carter, Tavares, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

September 12, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See FLA. R. APP. P. 9.315(A).

MAKAR, SOUD, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
fips state county sector 03_07 nh3_20 VOC_07 VOC_20 

47065 Tennessee Hamilton Co nonpoint 194.2493500000 201.9844191700 5,338.85500000 5,372.13951490 

47065 Tennessee Hamilton Co nonroad 2.6798625000 3.1182413289 2,383.26970000 1,213.31023020 

47065 Tennessee Hamilton Co onroad 161.5558652000 92.5074357430 4,797.47406810 1,541.83392420 

47065 Tennessee Hamilton Co point 12.4540000000 12.4539276990 1,047.00000000 1,038.08119910
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-41055

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Marco Antonio Perez-Barrientos, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 7:19-CR-1410-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marco PerezBarrientos has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 

2011). Perez-Barrientos has not filed a response. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances 

set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-41055 Document: 00515830568 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2021
No. 19-41055

2

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, 

and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 19-41055 Document: 00515830568 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2021
IBM (acb) June 8, 20101>>> n=51>>> n=56Qty Values per Cell with Data for Fab=200Qty Values per Cell with Data for Fab=3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2015105051015

frequencyNumber of Data Values for Each CellFabRefinedProcess1_CF42_C2F63_CHF34_CH2F25_C3F86_C4F87_NF38_SF69_C4F610_C5F811_C4F8O200 1_Oxide etch8 5 13 80901 110 0200 2_Nitride etch30200000000200 3_Silicon etch00000010000200 4_Metal etch0 0100000000200 5_In situ plasma clean4 130 04 1 180003200 6_Remote plasma clean000000510000200 7_In situ thermal chamber clean00000000000200 8_Bezel clean00000000000200 9_Ash wafer clean00000000000300 1_Oxide etch3252030 060 0300 2_Nitride etch102 10 010000300 3_Silicon etch3010001 1000300 4_Metal etch0 0100000000300 5_In situ plasma clean00000080000300 6_Remote plasma clean000030560000300 7_In situ thermal chamber clean00000010000300 8_Bezel clean00000000000300 9_Ash wafer clean30 010 010000IBM (acb) June 8, 20102Data for Uij by Refined Process x GasRefined Process . Gas

Uij200mm Uij by Refined Process x Gas00.20.40.60.81 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.09 2.01 2.03 3.07 4.03 5.01 5.02 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.11 6.07Refined Process . Gas

Uij300mm Uij by Refined Process x Gas00.20.40.60.81 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.09 2.01 2.03 2.04 2.07 3.01 3.03 3.07 3.08 4.03 5.07 6.05 6.07 7.07 9.01 9.04 9.07IBM (acb) June 8, 20103Distribution Comparisons for UU0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1012345

frequencyDistributionBetaGammaLognormalNormal300mmNF3Distribution Fitting of UijDistribution Comparisons for UU0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1024681012

frequencyDistributionBetaGammaLognormalNormal200mmNF3Refined Process: In-Situ Plasma CleanDistribution Comparisons for U0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1U012345

frequencyDistributionBetaGammaLognormalNormalNODA Table 3C2F6IBM (acb) June 8, 20104Observations•Data Limited for Individual Refined Process x Gas Cells–Median count of values is <5 for 200mm, 2 for 300mm–Difficult to determine adequate distribution given small n's–Summarizing with unweighted means and sigmas is dubious•Distribution Alternatives–Normal•Poor fit with highly skewed data•Can generate significant tails beyond 0 and 1, requiring truncation–Lognormal or Gamma•Eliminates tail < 0, but not thetail >1 which requires truncation•In cases where Uij's are high, fitsare very similar to the normal–Beta Distribution•Good alternative as distribution in[0,1] and shape is very flexible
#### FAUS GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and Unilin Beheer B.V., Flooring Industries, Ltd., and Unilin Flooring N.C. LLC, Intervenors.

No. 2007-1309.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 19, 2007.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. RApp. P. 42(b).
Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:76

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 2 of 33 PageID #:77

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 3 of 33 PageID #:78

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 4 of 33 PageID #:79

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 5 of 33 PageID #:80

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 6 of 33 PageID #:81

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:82

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:83

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 9 of 33 PageID #:84

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 10 of 33 PageID #:85

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 11 of 33 PageID #:86

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 12 of 33 PageID #:87

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 13 of 33 PageID #:88

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 14 of 33 PageID #:89

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 15 of 33 PageID #:90

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 16 of 33 PageID #:91

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 17 of 33 PageID #:92

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 18 of 33 PageID #:93

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 19 of 33 PageID #:94

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 20 of 33 PageID #:95

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 21 of 33 PageID #:96

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 22 of 33 PageID #:97

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 23 of 33 PageID #:98

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 24 of 33 PageID #:99

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 25 of 33 PageID #:100

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 26 of 33 PageID #:101

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 27 of 33 PageID #:102

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 28 of 33 PageID #:103

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 29 of 33 PageID #:104

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 30 of 33 PageID #:105

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 31 of 33 PageID #:106

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 32 of 33 PageID #:107

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 33 of 33 PageID #:108
COZEN O'CONNOR 1627 I STREET, N.W., SUITE 1100 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006·4007 TELEPHONE: (202) 9 12·4800

FACSIMILE: (202) 861·1 905 ZUCKERT, SCOUTT 

### Be RASENBERGER, L.L.P 888 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N.W., SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006·3939 TELEPHONE: (202) 298·8660

FACSIMILE: (202) 342·0683

March 18, 2013 

### Via regulations.gov and email Robert Finamore Division Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Office of International Aviation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 

### Re: Application of Czech Airlines j.s.c. and Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. for a Blanket Statement of Authorization; Docket OST -2013-0050
Dear Mr. Finamore:
We have polled the air carrier representatives on the attached service list regarding the above-referenced Application and received no objections. Accordingly, we respectfully request expedited consideration ofthis Application. Very truly yours,

COZEN O'CONNOR 

# Qt o •

# ._\N,__a,..~~c~(~ Allan Mendelsohn amendelsohn@cozen.com

Counsel for Czech Airlinesj .s.c. ZUCKERT, SCOUTT & RASENBERGER, L.L.P. 

# b,.

# •~:Wa•~Q,GSIO~ 

# i

William H. Callaway, Jr.

# ~ Jonathon H. Foglia whcallaway@zsrlaw.com jhfoglia@zsrlaw.com

Counsel for Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.

cc: All parties listed on the attached service list.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused a copy ofthe foregoing letter to be served, this 18th day of March, 2013, via email transmission, on the following persons: robert.wirick@aa.com mommer@atlasair.com sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com sam etta.c.bamett@delta.com charters@evergreenairlines.com ranj it. seth@evergreenairlines.com chris.schuldt@evergreenhelicopters.com philip.church@evergreenhelicopters.com robert. foster@evergreenairlines.com anbird@fedex.com gbleopard@fedex.com jhill@dowlohnes.com (Counsel for Hawaiian Airlines) kevin.montgomery@oolaraircargo.com peter.beckett@polaraircargo.com jonathan.linde@united.com steve.morrissey@united.com dan.weiss@united.com lhalloway@crowell.com (Counsel for United Air Lines) gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United Air Lines) anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) howard kass@usairways.com benj amin.slocum@usairways.com mlbenge@zsrlaw.com (Counsel for World Airways/North American Airlines) robert.finamore@dot.gov brett.kruger@dot. gov shelita. smith@dot. gov john.allen@faa. gov info@airlineinfo.com
Exhibit 10.2 to The Valspar Corporation Form 8-K dated October 20, 2009






Exhibit 10.2 


Term Sheet for Compensation Program for Non-Employee Directors


Approved on October 21, 2009


 


New Stock Awards in Lieu of Stock Options


 


Current Compensation Components


Directors currently receive an annual retainer of $150,000, with 50% delivered in cash and/or stock (paid quarterly) and the other 50% delivered as a stock option (annually in October).


 


New Equity Component


Based on Compensation Committee review and discussion with directors, management was asked to design a plan with the equity component delivered as a stock award to promote stock ownership by directors.


 



ANNUAL STOCK AWARDS





	
 
 	
§
 	
Beginning with grants in October 2010, directors will receive stock awards in lieu of stock option grants.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
The annual stock award for a director who joins the Board during the year will be prorated to reflect the partial year, and awarded at the same time as other director awards.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
The annual stock award for a director who retires from the Board during the year will be prorated to reflect the partial year, and awarded at the same time as other director awards.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
Awards will be vested at grant.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
Cash dividends will be paid quarterly.
 






Taxation of Stock Award/Cash Dividends





	
 
 	
§
 	
Stock Award will be taxed at grant at ordinary income rates.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
Directors file on their own as self-employed persons.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
Valspar will issue a Form 1099 each January reporting the value of the grant.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
Cash dividends will be taxed at dividend income rate and Valspar’s Transfer Agent, BNY Mellon, will issue a Form 1099 for dividends each January.
 






 


GRANTS TO NEW DIRECTORS





	
 
 	
§
 	
Upon joining the Board, a new director will be granted a restricted stock award with a value of 50% of the current annual retainer.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
This grant will be restricted for five (5) years to coincide with the target date for achieving stock ownership under corporate governance guidelines. 
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
Director must be serving as a member of the Board of Directors on the date the restriction lapse to receive the stock award.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
Cash dividends will be paid quarterly.
 









	
 
 	
§
 	
Stock Award will be taxed at ordinary income rates when restriction lapses.
#### 252.227-7031 [Reserved]
Not for P ubl ication in West's Fe deral Report er Citation Limit ed P ursuan t to 1st C ir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# U nit edStates C ou rt o f App eal s

For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-1926 CHESTER J. CHALUPOWSKI, JR. ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v. JOHN C. STEVENS, III, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF PROBATE

AND FAMILY COURT OF ESSEX COUNTY, Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Chester J. Chalupowski, Jr. and Malgorzata B. Chalupowski on brief pro se. David Hadas, Assistant Attorney General and Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General on brief for appellee.
December 13, 2005-2- Per Curiam . The pro se appellants, Chester and Malgorzata Chalupowski, appeal from a distric t court decision dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against a state court judge. After careful review of the record and the parties' arguments, we affirm.

We do not pass on the question whether the RookerFeldman doctrine applies because neither party addresses a recent imp o r t a n t Supreme Court case, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 125 S. Ct. 15 1 7 , 1526 (2005). In that case, the Court limited application of the doctrine to situations where the "losing party in state court filed suit in federal court after the state proceedings ended."

We affirm inste a d on the basis of judicial immunity, concluding that appellants' specific contentions lack merit. See, e.g., Sc h u c k e r v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9 Cir. th 1988) (per curiam) (finding that a state judge was immune even though he had ruled on a contempt petition after an appeal from a different ruling had been filed). Moreover, the district court had no obligation to entertain the claim for declaratory relief. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995) (stating that district courts have "unique and substantial discretion" in deciding whether to consider claims for declaratory relief).

Affirmed.
#### Frank Montalbano, appellee, v. Pere Marquette Railroad Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 30,483.

Action for personal injuries under Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. M. L. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed May 5, 1926.

Glennon, Cary, Walker & Murray, for appellant; Sidney O'. Murray and Marvin A. Jersild, of counsel.

Lynn & Korn, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.



Dated: July 9, 2004



By

/s/    TAKEO
FUKUIName:

Takeo FukuiTitle:

Chief Executive Officer Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-30450,  333-65568,  333-73318,  333-104481 and 333-121445) of
YDI  Wireless,  Inc. of our report  dated  February  25,  2005,  relating to the
consolidated  financial  statements  and  financial  statement  schedule  of YDI
Wireless,  Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 which  appears in the company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ Fitzgerald, Snyder & Co., P.C.

Fitzgerald, Snyder & Co., P.C.
McLean, Virginia
March 30, 2005
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT RO SAL IA ANG E L ICA RIO S RE Y, Pe titione r, v. L O RE T T A E . L YNCH , Attor ne y G e ne r al, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-73384 Age n c y No. A076-703-234 M E M O RANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 11, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI and T AL L M AN , C irc uit Judge s, a nd PIE RSO L , ** Se nior Distric t Judge . 1. M otions to re ope n m

ust inc lude e vide nc e that “ wa s not a va ila ble and c ould not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at the form e r he aring.” 8 C .F.R . 

# FIL ED SEP 29 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble La wre nc e L. Pie rsol, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of South Da kota , sitting by de signa

tion.pa ge 2

§ 1003.2(c )(1). The da

nge r that one of the de fe n da nts in the1997 tria l would ta ke re ve nge o n R ios R e y

for he r role a s a

gove rnm e nt witne s s wa s just a s high during he r first re m ova l proc e e ding a s it is now. Yet R ios R e y ne ve r m e ntione d this c onc e rn during he r prior re m ova l proc e e dings. B e c a use R i os R e y

fa ile d to pre se nt ne w e vide nc e tha

t c ouldn’ t ha

ve be e n pre se nte d “ at [he r] form e r he aring,” the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s prope rly de nie d he r m otion to re ope n. § 1003.2(c )(1). 2. R ios R e y

de c la re s tha t she ne ve r re c e ive d a

ny upda t e s re ga rding he r c a se a fte r it wa s a dm inistra

tive l y c lose d. The se a lle gations c ould giverise to a n ine ffe c tive -a s sista

nc e -of-c ounse l c la im , be c a use , if be lie ve d, R i os R e y ne ve r ha d an opportunity during the2001 a nd 2002 he arings to pre se nt he r fe ar of re ta lia tion if re m ove d to M e xic o. As the Gove rnm e nt c o nc e de d during ora l a rgum e nt, R ios R e y c ould pursue this c la im

by filing a ne w m otion to re ope n by following the proc e d ure outline d in M atte r of Loz a da , 19 I. & N. De c . 637, 639 (B IA 1988). Se e a lso C o rre a -R ive ra v. Holde r, 706 F.3d 1128, 1130–31 (9th C ir. 2013) (de sc ribing the “ proc e dura l re quire m e nts” for a nonre side nt to m ake an IAC c la im “ e sta blishe d by the B IA in M atte r of Loz a da ” ). W e orde r pe t itione r’ s c ounse l, C hristophe r J. Ste n de r, to de l ive r a

c opy of this m e m orandum

disposition to R

ios R e y . C ounse lpa ge 3

sha l l a l so se nd c onfirm ation to the C le rk of C ourt within fourte e n da y s of the public ation of this disposition indic ating tha t pe titione r ha s re c e ive d the disposition. The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D .
#### Loretta Gethers v City of New York et al.

— Motion for an enlargement of time to perfect the appeal denied with leave to renew the motion upon submission of a more detailed affidavit in compliance with *Zetlin v Hanson Holdings*(63 AD2d 878). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Silver-man, Lane and Markewich, JJ.