alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BUNN et al. v. WERNER et al.

No. 11812.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 20, 1954.

Decided Feb. 11, 1954.

*731Mr. Robert H. Campbell, Clare, Mich., for appellants.

Mr. Herman Miller, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before EDGERTON, BAZELON, and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants filed a complaint for an injunction to prevent a foreclosure sale of certain real estate under a deed of trust securing a usurious note, and for reformation of the note and deed of trust. Appellants moved at the same time for a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale. This appeal is from an order overruling that motion.

 When the appeal was argued counsel for each side said in open court that the foreclosure sale had taken place. It follows that this appeal must be dismissed as moot and the case remanded to the District Court for final hearing on the merits. At that hearing the District Court will not be bound by the findings and conclusions on which the denial of a preliminary injunction was based.

Remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2014 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2014

    To repeal section 2703(c)(2)(C) of title 18, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2013

   Mr. Amash (for himself, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Mulvaney, and Mr. Polis) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal section 2703(c)(2)(C) of title 18, United States Code.

    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 ``Telephone Records Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Subparagraph (C) of section 2703(c)(2) of title 18, United States 
Code, is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1069

BRADLEY BERRY; DONNA DAVID ELLIOTT, as

Administratrix of the estate of Charles

Elliott; LOUIS FETHERMAN; HOPE RAMIREZ, personal representative of the estate of Martin

Lumbert and sole surviving heir; MUSTAFAH

MANNSUR; KEVIN MILLER; JOHN RODRIGUEZ; JIM

ROOS; RANDALL SCHARMEN; ROBERT SETTLE; LETICIA

FETHERMAN; MARGARET ANN MANNSUR; SONDRA SETTLE

SORRENDINO,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-1057-5-3-BO)

Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Haral E. Carlin, Richard B. Glazier, BEAVER, HOLT, RICHARDSON,

STERNLICHT, BURGE & GLAZIER, P.A., Fayetteville, North Carolina,

for Appellants. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, R.

A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting the

Appellee’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Berry v. United

States, CA-96-1057-5-3-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 1997). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. Thus, Appellee’s motion to

submit the case on briefs without oral argument is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED
§ 1726.50 Distribution line materials and equipment. ( a ) *Contract forms.* ( 1 ) The borrower shall use RUS Form 198, Equipment Contract, for purchases of equipment where the total cost of the contract is more than $1,000,000.
( 2 ) The borrower may, in its discretion, use RUS Form 198, Equipment Contract, or a written purchase order equal to $1,000,000 or less for purchases of equipment, and for all materials.
( b ) *Standards and specifications.* Distribution line materials and equipment must meet the minimum requirements of RUS standards as determined in accordance with the provisions of part 1728 of this chapter, Electric Standards and Specifications for Materials and Construction. The borrower must obtain RUS approval prior to purchasing any unlisted distribution line material or equipment of the types listed in accordance with the provisions of part 1728 of this chapter.
( c ) *Procurement procedures.* It is the responsibility of each borrower to determine the procurement method that best meets its needs for the purchase of material and equipment to be used in distribution line construction.
( d ) *Contract approval.* Contracts for purchases of distribution line materials and equipment are not subject to RUS approval and need not be submitted to RUS unless specifically requested by RUS on a case by case basis.
[60 FR 10155, Feb. 23, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 7109, Feb. 13, 2004; 77 FR 3072, Jan. 23, 2012]
#### Gary Acres et al., Respondents, v Richard E. Hitchcock et al., Appellants. (And One Other Action.)

Motion for extension of time to perfect appeal granted, and time extended to 30 days from date the record on appeal is settled by the trial court, provided the application for settlement is made within 30 days of the date of this decision. Appellant Richard E. Hitchcock, a nonattorney appearing *pro se,*may not certify the record pursuant to CPLR 2105 (see 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 2105:01). Exhibits may be omitted from the record on appeal and shall be filed when briefs are filed. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
§ 1783.2 What Uniform Federal Assistance Provisions apply to the Revolving Fund Program? ( a ) This program is subject to the general provisions that apply to all grants made by USDA and that are set forth in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400.
( b ) This program is subject to the uniform administrative requirements that apply to all grants made by USDA to non-profit organizations and that are set forth in 2 CFR part 415.
( c ) 2 CFR part 180, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 417, Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension, implementing Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689 on debarment and suspension.
( d ) This program is subject to 2 CFR part 418, New Restrictions on Lobbying, prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to influence Congress or a Federal agency in connection with the making of any Federal grant and other Federal contracting and financial transactions.
( e ) This program is subject to 2 CFR part 421, Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance), implementing the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8102).
[79 FR 76007, Dec. 19, 2014, as amended at 81 FR 7698, Feb. 16, 2016]
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The
following is a list of the subsidiaries of the Company:

|   |  | Subsidiary                       |  | Place of
Incorporation
|-- |  | -------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|1) |  | Candela Iberica, S.A.            |  | Spain                 
|2) |  | Candela France SARL              |  | France                
|3) |  | Candela KK                       |  | Japan                 
|4) |  | Candela Laser (Deutschland) GmbH |  | Germany               
|5) |  | Candela Skin Care Centers, Inc.  |  | Massachusetts         

---

QuickLinks
#### § 1740.100 OMB control number.

The information collection requirements in this part are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB control number 0572-0152.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification
      a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 7, 2008
    /s/ Richard N. BurgerChief Financial Officer, Executive VicePresident, 
Secretary and Treasurer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anna Zraunig, Respondent, v. New York Telephone Company, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the self-insured employer from the board’s determination excusing the late filing of notice by the claimant. The board found, *“*Claimant’s failure to give the employer written statutory notice is excused on the ground the claimant obtained prompt medical attention and the employer was not prejudiced.” The claimant testified that on October 10, 1963, while on the employer’s premises, she fell and injured her back. She further stated that on October 18 she consulted a doctor and told him she fell while at work but requested that no report be filed because she did not want to put the ease under compensation. Thereafter intermittently she went to her attending doctor and visited a doctor while in Florida and on March 2, 1964 — five months after the accident — being advised of the necessity for an operation, she first notified her employer of the alleged accident. Section 18 of the law which provides for notice, so far as pertinent here, states that the board may excuse the failure on the grounds that there is no prejudice to the employer. The board in its finding failed to give any reason for excusing the failure to file and thus did not eompy with the statute. This court has stated on occasions that “ The mere naked opinion of the board that the employer had *‘*not been prejudiced ’, in the language of the section, by failure to give notice is not sufficient”. *(Matter of Goldin*v. *Schenck & Bros.,*2 A D 2d 641; *Matter of Buchanan*v. *Deposit Cent. School,*7 A D 2d 683, 684.) When the claimant knowingly failed to give prompt notice and instructed her physician to do likewise, no question arises as to the reason -for failure to comply with the law. From the present record it could be argued that the employer was prejudiced since it was deprived of the opportunity to make a timely investigation of the happening of the accident and to have its own prompt medical examination, there being present in the record a history of prior back trouble, the answers to which would certainly have been more evident at the time of the accident. Under such circumstances, it is the obligation of the board *to set*forth in its *611finding the reason for excusing the failure to promptly file in compliance with section 18. Decision reversed and matter remitted for further proceedings, with costs to appellant against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.
Exhibit 10.5

 

Compensation Summary Sheet for Phillip M. Fernandez

 

Phillip M. Fernandez serves as the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Marketo, Inc. (the “Company”).  Mr. Fernandez’s employment with the Company is “at will” and for no specific period of time.  During the year ended December 31, 2012, Mr. Fernandez had an annual base salary of $325,000 and an annual target bonus of $325,000.  Actual bonus amounts paid to Mr. Fernandez for 2012 were $308,750.  Effective as of January 1, 2013, Mr. Fernandez had an annual base salary of $350,000 and an annual target bonus of $350,000.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting in Prather, California, January 12, 2011 and in Clovis, California, January 26, 2011. The purpose of the January 12 meeting will be to review new project proposals that were submitted by the January 7, 2011 deadline. The purpose of the meeting on January 26 will be to vote and approve projects to be funded under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110-343).

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on January 12, 2011 from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in Prather, CA and January 26, 2011 from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in Clovis, CA.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting on January 12th will be held at the High Sierra Ranger District, 29688 Auberry Rd. Prather, CA. The meeting on January 26th will be held at the Sierra National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1600 Tollhouse Rd. Clovis, CA. Send written comments to Darcy Brown, Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, do Sierra National Forest, High Sierra Ranger District, 29688 Auberry Road, Prather, CA 93651 or electronically to                         *dlbrown02@fs.fed.us.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Darcy Brown, Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, (559) 855-5355 ext. 3374.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring Payments to States Fresno County Title II project matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Final project submissions are due by January 7, 2011 to the Forest Service. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Review project proposals and (2) Vote on projects to be funded.

Dated: November 8, 2010.

Ray Porter,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 2010-28799 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Editorial Note on Part 1951
Editorial Notes: 1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1951.711 Servicing options in lieu of liquidation or legal action to collect. When the conditions outlined in § 1951.709(b) are met, the servicing options outlined in this section will be considered. ( a ) *Continuation on modified terms.* When the recipient has the legal and financial capabilities, the case will be serviced according to one of the following, as appropriate. ( 1 ) *Unauthorized loan.* A loan for the unauthorized amount determined according to § 1951.707(a) will remain accelerated per the demand letter sent in accordance with § 1951.708 unless modified terms are timely reached with the recipient and accrued at the interest rate specified in the outstanding debt instrument or at the present market interest rate, whichever is greater, for the respective Community and Business program area. The loan will be amortized per a repayment schedule satisfactory to Rural Development, but in no event may the revised repayment schedule exceed a period of fifteen (15) years, the remaining term of the original loan, or the remaining useful life of the facility, whichever is shorter.
( 2 ) *Unauthorized grant.* The unauthorized grant amount determined according to § 1951.707(b) will be converted to an account receivable, with interest payable at the market interest rate for the respective Community Facilities or Business and Industry Program area in effect on the date the financial assistance was provided. In all cases, the receivable will be amortized per a repayment schedule satisfactory to Rural Development, but in no event may the amortization period exceed fifteen (15) years. The recipient will be required to execute a debt instrument to evidence this receivable, and the best security position available to adequately protect Rural Development's interest during the repayment period will be taken as security.
( 3 ) *Unauthorized subsidy benefits received.* When the recipient was eligible for the loan but should have been charged a higher interest rate than that in the debt instrument, which resulted in the receipt of unauthorized subsidy benefits, the case will be handled as follows: ( i ) The recipient will be given the option to submit a written request that the interest rate be corrected to the lower of the rate for which they were eligible that was in effect at the date of loan approval or loan closing.
( ii ) Any accrued unauthorized subsidy will be handled in accordance with § 1951.709.
( b ) *Continuation on existing terms.* When the recipient does not have the legal and/or financial capabilities for the options outlined in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section, the recipient may be allowed to continue to meet the loan obligations outlined in the existing loan instruments. Rural Development will not continue with unauthorized grants on existing terms.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1240

MARY NASOH,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: November 4, 2011 Decided: November 30, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore N. Nkwenti, LAW OFFICE OF THEODORE NKWENTI, Silver 

Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney 

General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Susan K. 

Houser, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mary Nasoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) denying her motions to reopen and reconsider. 

Because Nasoh fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully 

challenge the propriety of the Board’s denial of her motions to 

reopen and reconsider in the argument section of her brief, we 

find that she has failed to preserve any issues for review. See

Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain 

. . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with 

citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which 

the appellant relies.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 

231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the 

specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular 

claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons 

stated by the Board. See In re: Nasoh (B.I.A. Feb. 17, 2011). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2026 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to exempt certain silvicultural activities from national pollutant discharge elimination system permitting requirements, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2013 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER (for herself, Mr. SCHRADER, Mr. BENISHEK, Mrs. 

MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. THOMPSON of 

Pennsylvania, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. LARSEN of 

Washington, Mr. RAHALL, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Mr. COTTON, Mr. 

DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. JONES, Mr. MICHAUD, 

Mr. BARROW of Georgia, Mr. PETERSON, and Mr. HASTINGS of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to exempt certain silvicultural activities from national pollutant discharge elimination system permitting requirements, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Silviculture Regulatory 

5 Consistency Act of 2013’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2026 IH

1 SEC. 2. SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. 

2 Section 402(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

3 Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘(3) SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.— 

6 ‘‘(A) NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR

7 SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.—The Adminis8 trator shall not require a permit or otherwise 

9 promulgate regulations under this section or di10 rectly or indirectly require any State to require 

11 a permit under this section for a discharge of 

12 stormwater runoff resulting from the conduct of 

13 the following silviculture activities: nursery op14 erations, site preparation, reforestation and 

15 subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, pre16 scribed burning, pest and fire control, har17 vesting operations, surface drainage, and road 

18 use, construction, and maintenance. 

19 ‘‘(B) PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MA20 TERIAL.—Nothing in this paragraph exempts a 

21 silvicultural activity resulting in the discharge 

22 of dredged or fill material from any permitting 

23 requirement under section 404.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS