alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50128 Conference Calendar

__________________
DAMON H. DOWNS, Petitioner-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-94-CV-386 - - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1995 Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Damon H. Downs's application for a certificate of probable cause (CPC) is denied because a CPC is not necessary for a challenge to the execution of a federal sentence. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Downs's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) is denied because he has not indicated how the federal government has any involvement in his continuation in state custody. United States v. Garcia-Gutierrez , 835 F.2d 585, 587 (5th Cir. 1988); Scott v. United States , 434 F.2d 11, 21 (5thNo. 95-50128 -2- Cir. 1970); see Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Downs's appeal is frivolous and is dismissed as such. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. CPC DENIED, IFP DENIED, APPEAL DISMISSED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2119 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the opportunity for 

veterans to use video conferencing for hearings before the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2013 

Mr. RUIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

opportunity for veterans to use video conferencing for 

hearings before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Access to 

5 Speedy Review Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS VIDEO HEARINGS. 

7 Section 7107 of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2119 IH

1 (1) in subsection (d), by amending paragraph 

2 (1) to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(1)(A) Upon request for a hearing, the Board shall 

4 determine, for purposes of scheduling the hearing for the 

5 earliest possible date, whether a hearing before the Board 

6 will be held at its principal location or at a facility of the 

7 Department or other appropriate Federal facility located 

8 within the area served by a regional office of the Depart9 ment. The Board shall also determine whether to provide 

10 a hearing through the use of the facilities and equipment 

11 described in subsection (e)(1) or by the appellant person12 ally appearing before a Board member or panel. 

13 ‘‘(B) The Board shall notify the appellant of the de14 terminations of the location and type of hearing made 

15 under subparagraph (A). Upon notification, the appellant 

16 may request a different location or type of hearing as de17 scribed in such subparagraph. If so requested, the Board 

18 may grant such request and, in doing so, shall ensure that 

19 the hearing is scheduled at the earliest possible date with20 out any undue delay or other prejudice to the appellant.’’; 

21 and 

22 (2) in subsection (e)(2), by striking the last 

23 sentence. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 14-0012 0016 CBI: No

Focus Ready Draft 11 / 14 / 2013 PV (kg / yr): SUBMITTER: USE: ENGINEER: Choudhary \ REC

OTHER USES:

TLV / PEL: None established.CRSS (10 / 31 / 2013): Chemical Name: Amides, from fumarated tall

- o il fatty acids and triethylenetetramine

:

Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

PBT rating: P1B1T1 Health: Eco:OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING:
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: Yes (0 criteria met)CBI: No INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 14-0012 0016 Manufacturing:

Days / yr: Number of Sites / Location:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARYInhalation:

Dermal:CBI: No INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 14-0012 0016 Use: Number of Sites / Location:

Additional Unknown Site(s) Days / yr:
Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARYOCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:Inhalation: negligible (VP < 0.001 torr)

Dermal:
#### Mason *et al.*vs. Jouett’s Administrator.

*Scb-e Fmíu%*

A release of *one*of several obligors exonerates *the whole.*A covenant never to sue *asolé*obligor, >s, in effect, a release. But a covenant not to sue *one*of several joint 3°otS°exánerate the others ; nor even operate as-a release to'the covenantee; who, if sued, will be left to his action,, for redress.

[Mr. Haggin lor Plaintiffs : no appearance for Defendant.]

From the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

*April 21.*

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The administrator of a judgment creditor covenanted with one of the joint defendants to the judgment, that, for a valuable consideration paid, he would not “ levy, exact or collect,” as to that defendant, any portion of the judgment. Does such a covenant operate as a release to all or any of the joint debtors ? This is the only material question presented in this case.

A technical release to one of several who were bound *in*solido, whether jointly or severally, exonerates all the obligors. *,*

*108A covenant *never*to sue a sole obligor, will, to avoid circuity, be deemed a release of the obligation.

But a similar covenant with one of several *joint*obligors, should not be construed as a release of even the covenantee ; because such an interpretation would frustrate the intention of the parties, and operate unjustly ; for, if one of the joint obligors be released, no suit could be maintained against the others ; and the inconvenience and circuity incident to a suit on the covenant for a breach of it, would be far less unjust, and would be much more consistent with the intentions of the parties, than the constructive exoneration of all the joint obligors. In such a case, therefore', *such*a covenant will not be deemed a release.

The following authorities may sustain the foregoing positions. *Hodges*vs. *Smith, Cro. Eliz.*623. *Clayton*vs. Kynalston, 2 *Salk.*573. *Lacy*vs. *Kynaston,*1 *Ld. Raym.*690, *and*2 *Salk.*575. *Chitty on*Contracts, 295-6. *Putnam*vs. Lewis, 8 *Johnson,*304. *Kirby*vs. *Taylor,*6 *Johnson’s Chy. Reps.*250-1. *Com. Dig. (Amr. Ed.) tit. Release,*232. *Ward*vs. *Johnson,*6 *Munford,*6. 1 *Munford,*45.

Wherefore, as this opinion accords with that of the circuit judge, the judgment is affirmed.
#### § 1710.401 RUS policy.

EE Programs under this subpart may be financed at the distribution level or by an electric generation and transmission provider. RUS encourages borrowers to coordinate with the relevant member systems regarding their intention to implement a program financed under this subpart. RUS also encourages borrowers to leverage funds available under this subpart with State, local, or other funding sources that may be available to implement such programs.
LARRY BARBER

,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

,
Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1376

Opinion filed December 19, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

.
Larry Barber, pro se , Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Gayla Grant, Assistant General Counsel

, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied because the lower court ’s denial of

the mandamus petition did not constitute a departure from the essential requirement s

of law. To the extent petitioner challenges the lower court’s imposition of a lien on

his inmate trust account, that claim is not preserved because petitioner f ailed to raise

it below. See Kemp v. McDonough , 955 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

WOLF, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR.R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60669

Summary Calendar

 

DAO HUA LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A16 057 494

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dao Hua Lin, a native and citizen of People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an

order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision

to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality

Act, withholding ofremoval under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure.

The IJ determined, among other things, that Lin’s testimony was not credible. The BIA affirmed,

concluding that the IJ’s credibility finding was not clearly erroneous.
No. 04-60669

-2-

Lin argues that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Lin

further contends that any inconsistencies in his testimony or application should not have been

considered by the IJ because they concerned minor events that were not central to his claim that his

wife’s sterilization constituted past persecution. Lin also contests the IJ’s determination that Lin’s

failure to provide the Government with the documents he planned to introduce into evidence before

the day of the hearing weighed against his credibility and resulted in the documents being given “little

weight.” The IJ provided many cogent reasons for finding that Lin was not credible, and those

reasons were amply supported by the record. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). The

record thus does not compel a contrary credibility determination. See Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312

F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Lin also contests the IJ’s conclusions that Lin (1) came to the United States for monetary

gain, (2) might have resettled in Korea, (3) did not show that he wished to have another child, and

(4) did not prove that there was country-wide persecution. However, because these determinations

concerning Lin’s eligibility for relief did not impact the IJ’s credibility determination, and because the

IJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, we need not address them.

Lin does not challenge the determination that his asylum application was untimely, but even

if he did, we lack jurisdiction to review that determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2), (3). Lin also

does not appeal the denial of relief under the CAT or the denial of voluntary departure. Therefore,

those issues are waived. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).

Lin’s petition for review of the BIA’s order is DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Candela Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending July 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, F. Paul Broyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| /s/ F. PAUL BROYER        |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| F. Paul Broyer            |   |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |   |
| September 11,  2006  |   |

 

----
Child 

Tax Credit

If you qualify for the Child 

Tax Credit, you may 

qualify for the 

Additional Child 

Tax Credit

Additional

Child Tax

Credit You may be 

eligible for the 

Child Tax Credit 

and the Additional 

Child Tax Credit

Got

Kids?

More 

information 

is provided in 

Publication 972, Child 

Tax Credit

Publication 972

is available:

 On line

 www.irs.gov

 By phone

 1-800-829-3676

Publication 3965 (Rev. 9-2009)

Catalog Number 33428Y

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service
Child Tax Credit

The Child Tax Credit is a 

nonrefundable credit and may be 

as much as $1,000 per qualifying 

child depending upon your 

income.

The credit will be reduced if your 

adjusted gross income is over:

n $110,000* and your filing 

status is married filing jointly

n $75,000* and your filing status 

is single, head of household, 

or qualifying widow(er)

n $55,000* and your filing status 

is married filing separately

* Special rules may apply if you have 

income from outside the U.S.

Your child is a qualifying child for purposes 

of the child tax credit only if you can and do 

claim an exemption for him or her.

If you qualify for the 

Child Tax Credit, you may 

qualify for the Additional 

Child Tax Credit.

n The Additional Child Tax Credit 

is a refundable credit and may 

give you a refund even if you do 

not owe any tax.

n The credit is for certain 

individuals who receive less 

than the full amount of the Child 

Tax Credit.

n File Form 8812 to claim the 

Additional Child Tax Credit.

Additional Child 

Tax Credit

Who is a qualifying child?

All of the following tests must be met to claim 

someone as a qualifying child* for the child 

tax credit.

Relationship test:

The child must be your son, daughter, stepson, 

stepdaughter, legally adopted child or a child 

lawfully placed with you for legal adoption, 

brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, foster 

child placed with you by an authorized 

placement agency or by a court order, or a 

descendant of any such person. 

Residency test:

You and the child must have the same 

principle place of abode for more than half of 

the year (except for temporary absences).

Age test:

The child must be under the age 17 by 

December 31 of the calendar year in which 

your tax year begins.

Support test:

The child may not have provided over half of 

his or her own support for the calendar year 

in which your tax year begins.

Citizen, resident, or national test:

The child must be a United States citizen, 

United States national, or a resident of the 

United States.

An exception may apply if the parents of a 

child are divorced, separated, or living apart. 

See Publication 501, Exemptions, Standard 

Deduction, and Filing Information.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10.64

                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                       HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


    Whereas, Health Management Associates, Inc., a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Com pany"), established the Health
Management Associates, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the "Plan"),
and

    Whereas, the right to amend the Plan is expressly reserved to the Company
under Section 5.3 thereof, and

    Whereas, the Plan was amended effective December 13, 1993, under the First
Amendment to the Health Management Associates, Inc. Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan, and

    Whereas, the Company wishes to amend the Plan again.

    Now, Therefore, the Plan is hereby amended, effective September 17, 1996, as
follows:

    Section 4.1 is amended to read as follows:

    Section 4.1.  Retirement Benefit.  If a Participant's Full-Time Employment
                  ------------------                                          
    does not terminate until on or after his Normal Retire ment Date, the
    Participant shall be entitled to receive his Retirement Benefit. The Partici
    pant's first monthly Retirement Benefit payment shall be due and payable on
    the first day of the month immediately following his Normal Retirement Date.
    A Participant's Retirement Benefit shall not be increased, other than by
    resolution of the Board, for any delay between his Normal Retirement Date
    and his actual termination of Full-Time Employment.

    The remainder of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect and shall be
unaffected by this Second Amendment.

    In Witness Whereof, the Company has this caused this Second Amendment to be
executed this 17 day of September, 1996.


              Health Management Associates, Inc.




             By: /s/ Robb L.Smith
                 -----------------------------------



             Its: Senior Vice President
                  ----------------------------------

                                      68
#### Coyle’s devisees vs. Morton.

Case 89.

April 2*7.*

Error to the Fayette Circuit; Iln kev Judge.

*Abatement. Devisees.*

fn an action n£.ün«-t devíseos the suit may, u *on the -pium of *no inhabitant*a* to on*', be abated as to him and judgment takea' against the other*.

J'udge Nicholas

delivered the ..pinion of ilie court.

The only question presented in this case, is, whether in an action against devisees, upon the return of *no inhabitant*as to one, the suit can be abated as to him, and judgment taken against the others.

It is said that in several of the circuits, an abatement in such cases is not allowed. If so it is singable that the question should not have long ago been presented here for adjudication, for it is believed that the opposite practice has long obtained in much the greater number of the circuit courts. In fact it has prevailed so long and to *such an*extent, that we should feel great hesitation in disturbing it, even if we were satisfied, that it was originally wrong. But we consider it right in itself, and in perfect accordance with the principles settled in the case of Sneed vs. Weister, II. Mar. 277. In that case it was determined in favor of a practice that had long beneficially prevailed, that in an action of assumpsit on a parol contract, the suit might abate as to one of the defendants on the return of no inhabitant, and that the act. allowing the abatement in' the case of joint obligors, was only declaratory of the preexisting law. We can perceive no distinction, so far as regards this matter, between a joint obligation imposed by operation of law on heirs or devisees, and a joint obligation arising from a parol contract. All the arguments upon which the decision in Sneed vs. Wiester is based, apply as' well to the eme. as to the other. The arguments *ab inconvenient?-..*
      *275which were principally relied upon in that ease, and must have mainly influenced its decision, apply with precisely the same force to the case of and devisees. We might hesitate to innovate a rule upon arguments of that sort alone, without precedent or any long acquiesced in . practice' to support it- But we feel no doubt in following a precedent and a practice, founded in such good sense and sound policy, and extending its principles, if it be at all necessary to vive them extension, so as to embrace this and all analogous cases.

*Cowan*and Morehead, for plaintiffs; *Chinn,*for defendants.

Wherefore, judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ALANDER CRAPPS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:20cv21-MW/HTC

LT. JACOBS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 13. Upon consideration, no objections having 

been filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with Court orders, and failure 

to disclose prior litigation.” The Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 26, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00021-MW-HTC Document 14 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 1
Equity Participation Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
  
 AMENDMENT TO THE 1999 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY PARTICIPATION PLAN 
 OF 
 SAFEWAY INC. 
  
 Adopted by the Board of Directors on March 10, 2005 
  
 Safeway Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), adopted The 1999 Amended and Restated Equity Participation Plan of Safeway Inc. (the
“Plan”), effective upon the approval of the Plan by the stockholders of the Company. The stockholders of the Company approved the Plan at the Company’s meeting of stockholders held on May 11, 1999. The Plan was amended to increase the
aggregate number of shares of Common Stock issuable under the Plan by an amendment to the Plan adopted by the Board on February 25, 2003, and such amendment was approved at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders on May 15, 2003. The Plan
was further amended by the Board of Directors on February 26, 2004 and May 2, 2004. The Plan was further amended by the Board of Directors on June 2, 2004, subject to approval of such amendment by the stockholders of the Company. The Company desires
to amend the amendment to the Plan adopted on June 2, 2004 to eliminate the condition requiring approval of such amendment by the stockholders of the Company because such approval is not required. 
  
 Pursuant to Section 11.2 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company
(the “Board”) hereby adopts this Amendment to the Plan, effective as of March 10, 2005. 
  
 The amendment to the Plan adopted on June 2, 2004 is hereby amended to eliminate the condition requiring approval of such amendment by the stockholders of
the Company and the requirement that such amendment be presented to the stockholders of the Company, and such amendment shall be and remain effective as of June 2, 2004. Accordingly, the exercisability of Options granted to Independent Directors
under the terms and conditions of the Plan (as amended by such amendment) shall not be subject to the approval of such amendment by the stockholders of the Company. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of Safeway Inc. has hereunder adopted this Amendment to the Plan as indicated by
the signature of the duly authorized officer of Safeway Inc. this 10th day of March, 2005. 
  

			
	SAFEWAY INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Linda C. Sayler


	 Title:
	 	Secretary
Sunvalley Solar Inc.


398 Lemon Creek Suite A, Walnut.
CA 91789


Tel: (909)598-0618Fax: (909)598-6633


 


 


 


Date: 4/4/2013


 


Private Loan Agreement


 





Due to the rapid business development; the Company needs
funds for operation and inventory purchase. The Board of Directors authorize Hangbo Yu (General Manager), on behalf of the Company,
to sign a short term loan agreement with James Zhang (shareholder/CEO). The loan amount is $50,000. The start day will be the day
that $50,000 is transferred to the Company's account. The annual interest for this short-term loan is $6.50% and the term of this
loan should be less than a year.







 


 


Borrower:


 


/s/ Hangbo Yu


Hangbo Yu, General Manager


Sunvalley Solar Inc.


 


 


 


Lender:


 


/s/ James Zhang


James Zhang