alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID W. JAHN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-623-MEF

)

REGINALD JAMES WASHINGTON, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

It is ORDERED that this case is set for a pretrial hearing, as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16,

on October 1, 2007 at 9:30 A.M. in the Chambers of the undersigned, United States Courthouse,

One Church Street, A-300, Montgomery, Alabama.

The pretrial hearing will be conducted in consideration of the matters provided for in Rule

16. All parties are expected to have fully complied with this court's Rule 16 order. All parties

should prepare and have ready all possible admissions of fact and documents which might avoid

unnecessary proof upon trial.

LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT at the time above

designated and be fully prepared to state the facts of the case in the most minute detail and to admit

all facts that are true. Appropriate penalties will be imposed for failure to comply with these

requirements.

All motions WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN OTHERWISE SUBMITTED OR RULED ON will

be heard at the above stated time.

The parties are DIRECTED to JOINTLY prepare a proposed pretrial order in accordance

with the attached outline. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to e:mail the proposed pretrial order to

propord_fuller@almd.uscourts.gov in Word or WordPerfect format, to be received no later than

three business days prior to the pretrial hearing.

TRIAL TERM COMMENCES: November 5, 2007 in Montgomery, Alabama.

DONE this the 5th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 41 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS

The proposed pretrial order must be joint, and not piecemeal, and it should be reviewed and

approved by all parties BEFORE the pretrial hearing.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

DIVISION

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON PRETRIAL HEARING

A pretrial hearing was held in this case on ______, wherein the following proceedings were

held and actions taken:

1. PARTIES AND TRIAL COUNSEL:

COUNSEL APPEARING AT PRETRIAL HEARING: (same as trial counsel) or

(indicate if different) ____________________

2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

3. PLEADINGS: The following pleadings and amendments were allowed:

Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 41 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

(a) The plaintiff(s)

(b) The defendant(s)

5. STIPULATIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

PLEASE LEAVE ORDER UNFINISHED AT THIS POINT FOR COMPLETION BY THE

COURT.

Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 41 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 3 of 3
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.53 Substandard hazelnuts.

The Board shall, with the approval of the Secretary, establish such reporting and disposition procedures as it deems necessary to ensure that hazelnuts which do not meet the effective inshell or shelled hazelnut minimum standards do not enter normal market outlets for certified hazelnuts.

[24 FR 6185, Aug. 1, 1959. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 88 FR 82235, Nov. 24, 2023]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, Senior United States District Judge **

for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROGELIO MARQUEZ-CRUZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 11-73199

Agency No. A089-854-359

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted November 5, 2012

Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE, District

Judge.** 

Rogelio Marquez-Cruz petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his

application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention

Against Torture. We deny the petition.

FILED

NOV 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

1. The BIA’s determination that Marquez did not file an asylum application

within a reasonable time given his changed circumstances is supported by

substantial evidence. Although the events giving rise to the changed circumstances

occurred in September and October 2008, Marquez failed to take any action to file

an asylum application until August 2009, after he was arrested for domestic assault

and removal proceedings were instituted against him. The evidence does not

compel the conclusion that his delay was reasonable. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the

evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it . . . .”).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Marquez

has not shown a clear probability that he will be persecuted or tortured if he is

removed to Mexico. Given his family’s continued safety in Mexico following the

2008 incidents, the absence of any evidence that Marquez himself was targeted and

the BIA’s observation that there is no reason for the perpetrators of the 2008

crimes to believe that Marquez has any information on or affiliation with

Rogaciano Alva Alvarez, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to that

reached by the BIA.

PETITION DENIED.
### Stratigraphy and tectonic implications of Upper Cretaceous rocks in the Powder River basin, northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana

By: E. A. Merewether

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1917T

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
-                                 Larger Work: This publication is Chapter                                T of                                                                              Evolution of sedimentary basins: Powder River Basin                                                                    
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### 212 Airport Drive 

### www.bradfordairport.net September 25 , 2013 Mr
. Dennis J. DeVany Chief , Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 6401 Washington, D
.C. 20590
Dear Mr
. DeVany : 

### 8RRDFDRD 

### DEiiiODHL IRPDRT Lewis Run, PA 16738 814-368-5928 EX 10

As you are well aware, the Essential Air Service program had fundamental rule changes to determine eligibility for federal subsidies. One ofthese changes was the criterion for a minimum of 10 enplanements per service day. 

### In Order 2012-9-23 , Selecting Silver Airways as the carrier for a 2 year period from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2014 it states : On page 4- Bradford and Franklin have fewer than 10 enplanements per day and Jamestown is just over 10 at 10.7. It also states " Silver and the communities, particularly Bradford and Franklin, must attract additional passengers, thus increasing enplanements to meet the 10 enplanement statutory requirement in order for them to remain eligible to continue receiving EAS after FY 2013 , i.e. after September 30, 2013 "
. On page 5 - "The Department fully expects that the communities and Silver will work together to ensure that the subsidy per passenger is below $200. " Bradford Regional Airport officials have attempted to work with Silver Airways in marketing the air service this past year to increase passenger traffic and there has been
. limited response from Silver Airways. Since Silver Airways began providing service in 2008 , the airport has averaged 2,791 enplanements per year. In the 6-year period prior to Silver Airways providing air service, the airport averaged 6,368 enplanements per year. Unfortunately, the relationship with Silver has resulted in a steady decl.ine in passenger traffic. On behalf of the Bradford Regional Airport Authority, we ask that you terminate the contract with Silver Airways immediately and request a right to a waiver now or in the future to secure an airline who will work with the airport and community to deliver adequate air service, market the air service and increase passenger traffic. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (814) 368-5928. Thank you . Sincerely, 

# 'Jt-cL#

Thomas C. Frungillo, A
.A
.E Airport Director
§ 1003.16 Dismissal of petitions. The Director may issue a Decision and Order dismissing a petition at any time during the course of a proceeding. The Decision and Order shall state whether the dismissal is with prejudice or without prejudice. A Decision and order Dismissing a petition may be the subject of a motion for reconsideration in accordance with § 1003.19 of this part. ( a ) *Dismissal with prejudice.* The dismissal of a petition with prejudice by the OHA terminates the OHA's review of the petition and bars the petitioner from submitting any future petition concerning the same, or substantially the same, issues as those in the petition. The OHA may dismiss a petition with prejudice if: ( 1 ) The OHA lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition;
( 2 ) The petitioner has already received a Decision and Order from the Director in response to a previously filed petition that addresses the same issue;
( 3 ) The petitioner provides a false statement under oath or files a false instrument with the OHA, as determined by the OHA;
( 4 ) The petitioner refuses to comply with an order issued by the OHA;
( 5 ) The petition is untimely;
( 6 ) The issues raised in the petition are moot;
( 7 ) The petitioner repeatedly fails to comply with procedural requirements; or,
( 8 ) The same or a substantially similar petition was previously dismissed by the OHA without prejudice, and the same basis for dismissal without prejudice exists upon refiling by the same petitioner.
( b ) *Dismissal without prejudice.* The dismissal of a petition without prejudice by the OHA terminates the OHA's review of the petition but does not bar the petitioner from resubmitting the petition provided that the facts or circumstances leading to the dismissal have been resolved. In dismissing a petition without prejudice, the OHA may order that the petitioner may not resubmit the petition, or a substantially similar petition, for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. The OHA may dismiss a petition without prejudice if: ( 1 ) The petitioner fails to include any of the required elements of a petition set forth in § 1003.11 of this part;
( 2 ) The petitioner fails to provide notice as required by § 1003.12 of this part;
( 3 ) The petitioner fails to timely provide documents or information at the request of the OHA pursuant to § 1003.14 or § 1003.15 of this part;
( 4 ) The petition fails to state a claim upon which the OHA can grant relief; or
( 5 ) The OHA determines that there is insufficient information upon which to base a decision.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Photogen Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Taffy J. Williams, Ph.D.,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)     The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 except that the Report and the financial statements have not beenreviewed by external auditors; and

 

(2)     The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company

 

 
| /s/ Taffy J. Williams     |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Taffy J.  Williams, Ph.D. |
| Chief  Executive Officer  |
| September 4,  2003        |

 

----
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.54








DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


	
			
	All compensation values are in US $

	Board Service
Annual Cash Retainer
Board Meeting Fees
Annual Equity Grant


Chairman
Lead Director
	$75,000
$0
$75,000


$150,000 (additional)
$20,000 (additional)

	Audit Committee Service
Chair Retainer
Member Retainer
Meeting Fee
	$25,000
$0
$0

	Other Committee Service
Chair retainer
Member Retainer
Meeting Fee
	

$15,000
$0
$0

	Total Direct Compensation Simulations
Typical Director
Typical Committee Chair
Typical Audit Committee Chair
	

$150,000
$165,000
$175,000

	Stock Ownership Guidelines

	Level of Ownership
	3X Annual Cash Retainer

	Counted Shares
	Owned shares
Cash-settled and share-settled DSUs
Cash-settled and share-settled RSUs

	Timing of evaluation
	Whenever a director is considering selling shares

	Requirement to hold on to shares until and unless ownership target is met. This requirement applies whenever target is not met.
	Shares received further to the settlement of RSUs, except portion required to cover tax liability
Shares equivalent to 50% of gross gain realized on exercise of options

	With respect to cash-settled RSUs, requirement to purchase shares until and unless target is met. This requirement applies whenever target is not met.
	Directors must purchase shares with net proceeds of cash-settled RSUs

	Considered Value
	For each share, the greater of market price and book value
For each DSU and RSU, the greater of market price and grant value








February 27, 2018
UMPQUA BANK


(Herein called "Bank")












FIRST NOTE REVISION AGREEMENT







	
ORIGINAL NOTE INFORMATION

	
AMOUNT


 

	
NOTE DATE

	
CURRENT MATURITY DATE


	
$20,000,000.00


 

	
June 5, 2017

	
March 1, 2018









               This Agreement is effective as of:  February 28, 2018.


ORIGINAL OBLIGATION:


This Agreement refers to the loan evidenced by the above Master Revolving Note dated June 5, 2017 in favor of Bank executed by OWENS REALTY MORTGAGE, INC., a Maryland corporation ("Borrower"), in the original principal amount of $20,000,000, payable in full on March 1, 2018.


CURRENT OBLIGATION:


The unpaid outstanding principal balance of said Note as of the beginning of the day on February 23, 2018 is $3,192.586.67.


REVISION:


The undersigned Borrower hereby requests Bank to revise the terms of said Note, in the following manner:  The Maturity Date of the Note is changed from "March 1, 2018" to "June 1, 2018".


In consideration of Bank's acceptance of the revision of said Note, all as set forth above, the Borrower does hereby acknowledge and admit to such indebtedness, and further does unconditionally agree to pay such indebtedness together with interest thereon within the time and in the manner as revised in accordance with the foregoing, together with any and all attorney's fees and cost of collection.


This Agreement is a revision only, and not a novation; and except as herein provided, all of the terms and conditions of said Note and all related documents shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







	
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


The foregoing is accepted.


 


UMPQUA BANK


 


 


By: /s/ Jim Higgins

 Name: Jim Higgins


Title: Senior Vice President

  

	
OWENS REALTY MORTGAGE, INC.,

a Maryland corporation

  


By:  /s/ Bryan H. Draper

         Bryan H. Draper, President and

     Chief Executive Officer
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM     Document 22      Filed 10/23/2006     Page 1 of 2

Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM     Document 22      Filed 10/23/2006     Page 2 of 2

Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM     Document 22-2      Filed 10/23/2006     Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         173,129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      43,630,837
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,321,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,846,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,122,221
<BONDS>                                     32,613,731
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (21,856,844)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,846,950
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,090,643
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,548,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,896,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,297,451)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,297,451)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,297,451)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (62.37)
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 28 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 984.13 To handle.

*To handle* means to receive, pack, sell, consign, transport, or ship (except as a common or contract carrier of walnuts owned by another person), or in any other way to put walnuts, inshell or shelled, into the current of commerce either within the area of production or from such area to any point outside thereof, or for a manufacturer or retailer within the area of production to purchase directly from a grower. However, sales and deliveries by a grower to handlers, hullers, or other processors within the area of production shall not, in itself, be considered as handling by a grower. The term “to handle” shall not include sales and deliveries within the area of production between handlers.

[88 FR 56748, Aug. 21, 2023]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3224 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3224

 To extend the duty reduction on artichokes, prepared or preserved by 
                        vinegar or acetic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the duty reduction on artichokes, prepared or preserved by 
                        vinegar or acetic acid.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REDUCTION OF DUTY ON ARTICHOKES, PREPARED OR 
              PRESERVED BY VINEGAR OR ACETIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to artichokes, prepared or 
preserved by vinegar or acetic acid) is amended by striking ``12/31/
2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Harry Tesmetges, as Representative Broker of Arcadia Realty Corf. , Petitioner, v Basil A. Paterson, as Secretary of State of the State of New York, Respondent

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated December 5,1979, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had demonstrated untrustworthiness and (1) directed that his application for renewal of his real estate broker’s license not be processed until payment by him of a commission allegedly owed by him to a real estate salesperson formerly in his employ, and (2) further directed that upon such payment, the application be processed and if the license is renewed, that it be suspended for a period of three months or, in lieu thereof, he pay a $500 fine. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and charges dismissed. The sole conduct relied upon to demonstrate petitioner’s alleged untrustworthiness arose out of a bona fide, purely private dispute between himself and a former salesperson regarding money allegedly owed one to the other. The foregoing is legally insufficient to sustain the determination made by the Secretary of State (see *Matter of Flushing Kent Realty Corp. v Cuomo,*55 AD2d 646; *Matter of Vincent v Department of State of State of N. Y.,*40 AD2d 612; *Matter of Kreitsek v Department of State of State of N. Y.,*28 AD2d 721). Hopkins, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.