alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USCIS - New USCIS Field Office in Holtsville, Long Island Opens on October 14, 2010

http://www.uscis.gov/...b95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ab230d1fd9bab210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=8a2f6d26d17df110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD[2/27/2013 10:42:51 AM]

Home | Español | Blog | Archive |

Index

Printer Friendly

InfoPass

My Case Status

Change of Address

Visa Bulletin

Passports

E-Verify

Careers at USCIS

Site Map (Index)

Contact Us

USCIS ELIS

Citizenship

Green Card

Family

Working in the U.S.

Humanitarian

Adoption

Military

Avoid Scams

History and Genealogy

Visit the U.S.

U.S. Department of Homeland

Security

U.S. Customs & Border Protection

U.S. Immigration & Customs

Enforcement

White House

U.S. Department of State

USA.gov

USCIS Freedom of Information Act

and Privacy Act

No FEAR Act

Website Policies

Social Media Policy

Privacy and Legal Disclaimers

Accessibility

Plug-ins

Adobe Reader

Windows Media Player

Archive

Public Releases by Topic

News Releases

Updates

Questions and Answers

Fact Sheets

Your Guide to InfoPass

Media Contacts

Alerts

Outstanding Americans by

Choice

Home > NEWS > Fact Sheets

New USCIS Field Office in Holtsville, Long Island

Opens on October 14, 2010

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) opened a new office in Holtsville, Long

Island on October 14, 2010. The office is a fully equipped USCIS facility with the capacity for

serving approximately 400 customers a day for residents of Nassau, Suffolk and Queens

Counties. 

The new 47,000 square foot office is the result of a national effort by USCIS to create more

accessible, efficient and customer-friendly offices. Similar offices have opened over the last

three years in North Carolina, Florida, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Texas, Colorado,

Michigan, New Hampshire and Hawaii.

The new office is staffed by approximately 100 federal and contract employees who were

previously assigned to USCIS’s Garden City Field Office. It also incorporates the functions and

staff of USCIS’s Application Support Center in Hicksville, NY.

It features hi-tech, innovative customer service tools such as InfoPass (a convenient, internetbased system that allows customers to schedule appointments with Immigration Services

Officers), a spacious waiting area, private offices for conducting interviews, and a room for

naturalization ceremonies and public events. Because it incorporates the functions of the

Application Support Center, the new office eliminates the need for customers to travel to

another location for fingerprinting and other essential steps in the application process.

The office is located at 30 Barretts Avenue, Holtsville, NY, 11742. The location was chosen

based on a geographic analysis of where USCIS customers live and its easy access to major

traffic routes, including the Long Island Expressway.

Last updated:10/14/2010

Related Links

USCIS Opens New Office in

Holtsville, Long Island: New

Release

Add Our RSS Feed

 Share This Page

FORMS NEWS RESOURCES LAWS OUTREACH ABOUT US

Skip to Main Content
§ 1311.05 Standards for technologies for electronic transmission of orders. ( a ) A registrant or a person with power of attorney to sign orders for Schedule I and II controlled substances may use any technology to sign and electronically transmit orders if the technology provides all of the following: ( 1 ) *Authentication:* The system must enable a recipient to positively verify the signer without direct communication with the signer and subsequently demonstrate to a third party, if needed, that the sender's identity was properly verified.
( 2 ) *Nonrepudiation:* The system must ensure that strong and substantial evidence is available to the recipient of the sender's identity, sufficient to prevent the sender from successfully denying having sent the data. This criterion includes the ability of a third party to verify the origin of the document.
( 3 ) *Message integrity:* The system must ensure that the recipient, or a third party, can determine whether the contents of the document have been altered during transmission or after receipt.
( b ) DEA has identified the following means of electronically signing and transmitting order forms as meeting all of the standards set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. ( 1 ) Digital signatures using Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
# C_2014388EN.01002902.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/29

---

Action brought on 23 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-72/14)

2014/C 388/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco and A. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board of the competition not to admit the applicant to internal competition COM/3/AD 9/13 because she was not a ‘member of the temporary staff of the Commission’ which is a condition for eligibility.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 18 September 2013, confirmed on 22 October 2013, not to admit the applicant to competition COM/3/AD 9/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 18 September 2013, confirmed on 22 October 2013, not to admit the applicant to competition COM/3/AD 9/13;

| — | Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision dated 11 April 2014 and served on the applicant on 14 April 2014 rejecting the claim of 17 December 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision dated 11 April 2014 and served on the applicant on 14 April 2014 rejecting the claim of 17 December 2013;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
* 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 circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 30, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20606

Summary Calendar

 

JOSE VALENTINE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ADRIAN M. THOMAS, Correctional Lieutenant;

JAMES D. RUBY, Sergeant of Correctional

Officers; CAREY S. STAPLES, Assistant

Warden; SENIOR WARDEN LAUGHLIN; MAJOR RICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-1951

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Valentine, Texas prisoner # 113104, appeals the

district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. He asserts that Lieutenant Thomas used excessive

force against him by pushing him into a filing cabinet, resulting

in a bruise on his thigh, which did not require medical

treatment, although he was given ibuprofen. Valentine has not

established that he suffered an injury that was more than de
No. 04-20606

-2-

minimis. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1992); Gomez

v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 924 (5th Cir. 1999). The district

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this claim. See

Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).

Valentine does not argue on appeal that the district court

abused its discretion in dismissing his claims against the

defendants not physically present for the assault or in refusing

to consider his state law claims of assault. These claims area

therefore deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The

judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.
# C_2016305EN.01005302.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/53

---

Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Gain Capital UK v EUIPO — Citigroup (CITY INDEX)

(Case T-269/14) (1)

1

(2016/C 305/72)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

1

---
# C_2016392EN.01003002.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Philip Morris v Commission

(Case T-796/14) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest))

(2016/C 392/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3142109 of 24 September 2014, in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant full access to the requested documents, with the exception of the redacted personal data contained therein.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Philip Morris Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Philip Morris Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.

1

---
§ 520.2520c Trichlorfon granules. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each package contains either 18.2 or 36.4 g of trichlorfon.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in horses* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 18.2 milligrams per pound of body weight.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For horses for removal of bots (*Gastrophilus nasalis, Gastrophilus intestinalis*), large roundworms (ascarids, *Parascaris equorum*), and pinworms (*Oxyuris equi*).
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[45 FR 48128, July 18, 1980. Redesignated and amended at 79 FR 28833, May 20, 2014]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7642 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7642

 To reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program 
                  Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 719 et seq.).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2024

Ms. Scholten (for herself and Mr. Yakym) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program 
                  Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 719 et seq.).

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION AND DESIGN 
              PROGRAM ACT OF 1994.

    (a) Definition of State.--Section 5 of the Junior Duck Stamp 
Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 719b-1) is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``and'' after ``Guam,''; and
            (2) by striking ``, and any other territory or possession'' 
        after ``Virgin Islands''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 6 of the Junior Duck 
Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 719c) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``$350,000'' and inserting 
                ``$550,000''; and
                    (B) by striking ``2006 through 2010'' and inserting 
                ``2024 through 2030''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$100,000'' and 
                inserting ``$200,000''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$250,000'' and 
                inserting ``$350,000''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2014184EN.01004102.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/41

---

Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-19/14)

2014/C 184/68

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to credit the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme by application of the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare illegal and therefore inapplicable Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare illegal and therefore inapplicable Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | Annul the decision of 24 May 2013 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, as part of the transfer of those pension rights into the Pension Scheme of the European Institutions (‘PSEUI’) by application of the general implementing provisions (‘GIPs’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 24 May 2013 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, as part of the transfer of those pension rights into the Pension Scheme of the European Institutions (‘PSEUI’) by application of the general implementing provisions (‘GIPs’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
U. S. Department of Homeland Security

 Office for Domestic Preparedness

 Washington, D.C. 20531

ODP Information Bulletin

No. 93 January 13, 2004

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads

All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact

All State Homeland Security Directors

FROM: C. Suzanne Mencer

Director

SUBJECT: Establishing a State Homeland Security Information Sharing Network

In recognition of the extensive and diverse experience states have in developing and

implementing homeland security initiatives, ODP proposes the establishment of a State

Homeland Security Information Sharing Network. The goal of this program is to connect states

with well-developed programs tackling complex terrorism prevention, response, and recovery

issues with states seeking additional guidance in specific program areas.

Participation in the State Homeland Security Information Sharing Network is purely voluntary.

ODP hopes that the network will facilitate additional communication and coordination among

states, many of which face similar challenges in addressing homeland security issues. The

network will provide a formal means of information exchange among states which may not yet

have had the opportunity or available resources to share ideas.

As a starting point, states are encouraged to consider their approaches to the following issues and

determine whether they might be useful or applicable to other states:

 Regional planning and response mechanisms

 Training systems, including course development and institutionalization strategies

 Exercise programs

 Communications and equipment interoperability

 State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy program data validation

 State Homeland Security Strategy development and implementation

 Prevention/deterrence

 Recovery operations

 Other
States with well-developed programs in any of these areas are encouraged to contact their

assigned Program Manager within ODP. Similarly, states interested in obtaining additional

information or guidance should also contact their Program Manager. ODP will then facilitate

initial communication and coordination between the appropriate state parties. Once in contact,

state participants will decide the best means of information sharing, such as teleconferences or

on-site visits.

ODP’s existing technical assistance (TA) program, which provides specialized assistance in

critical homeland security areas, will remain in place and continue to fill TA needs. The network

is not intended to replace or supplant TA delivery to state and local jurisdictions to enhance their

capacity and preparedness to respond to domestic terrorism incidents. These new information

sharing efforts simply provide another avenue toward improving overall capabilities.

ODP looks forward to the launch of this new initiative and continued coordination with state and

local partners in assuring homeland security.
39066, 39095.

#### RAMIREZ v. MANSOUR; and *vice versa.*

Jordan, Judge.

This was a suit to recover damages for personal injuries claimed by the plaintiff as a result of an automobile collision which occurred in the City of Mountain Brook, Ala*652bama, while she was riding as a guest passenger in an automobile being operated by the defendant. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the trial court subsequently granted the defendant’s amended motion for new trial. The main bill of exceptions assigns error on the granting of a new trial on three of the special grounds and the cross-bill assigns error on the denial of the general grounds and the remaining special ground. *Held:*

Decided September 28, 1961

Rehearing denied October 17, 1961.

1. Under the decisions of the Supreme Court in *Thompson v. Davitte,*59 Ga. 472; *Howard v. Obie,*190 Ga. 394 (9 SE2d 666); and *McCallie v. McCallie,*192 Ga. 699 (3) (16 SE2d 562), the provisions of *Code*§ 38-119 are not applicable to the failure of a party defendant to testify at his trial. Though this construction appears to be reluctantly followed in *McCallie v. McCallie,*supra, it is nevertheless binding on this court and must be adhered to in this case. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in sustaining special grounds 4, 5 and 6 of the amended motion which complained of the giving of the principles embodied in this Code section in charge to the jury in the instant case with reference to the defendant’s failure to appear personally and testify at the trial, and in granting a new trial based thereon.

2. This case was tried under a stipulation admitting the existence of the Alabama guest statute requiring the plaintiff to prove wanton misconduct on the part of the defendant as a prerequisite to recovering against the defendant. In this regard it appears that the trial court fully charged the laws and applicable legal principles of the State of Alabama relating to wanton misconduct. Special ground 7 which attacks a portion of the charge relating to wanton misconduct is without merit.

3. Since this case is to be tried again, the general grounds are not ruled upon, except to say that the evidence, as construed under the applicable laws and court decisions of the State of Alabama, did not demand a verdict for either party.

*Judgment affirmed on both the main bill and cross-bill of exceptions.*

*Townsend, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*

*653
      *N. Forrest Montet,*for plaintiff in error.

*Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Frank Love, Jr.,*contra.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.18



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTURA ENERGY, INC.
MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN
 
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 (this “Amendment”), is dated as of January 18, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) and amends that certain Management Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of Contura Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) effective as of July 26, 2016. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan.
 
RECITALS
 
WHEREAS, the Board previously adopted the Plan; and
 
WHEREAS, Board deems it in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan as set forth herein, effective as of the Effective Date.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Plan as follows:
     
1.    A new Section 7.03 is hereby added as follows:  


“Section 7.03 Initial Public Offering.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, on the date immediately prior to the date on which the Company initially sells its common stock in a bona fide, firm commitment underwriting pursuant to a registration statement under the Securities Act (the “IPO”), but contingent upon the consummation of the IPO, all then-outstanding Awards shall immediately vest and the Company shall make the Change in Control Grants in accordance with Section 7.02 hereof.  For the sake of clarity, the occurrence of an IPO will be considered to be a Change in Control for purposes of Section 7.02.”
2.    This Amendment shall only serve to amend and modify the Plan to the extent specifically provided herein.  All terms, conditions, provisions and references of and to the Plan which are not specifically modified, amended and/or waived herein shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be altered by any provisions herein contained.  All prior agreements, promises, negotiations and representations, either oral or written, relating to the subject matter of this Amendment not expressly set forth in this Amendment are of no force or effect.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4


                               AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
                             WALL DATA INCORPORATED
                        1994 NONOFFICER STOCK OPTION PLAN
                   AS AMENDED AND RESTATED ON OCTOBER 15, 1996

        The Wall Data Incorporated 1994 Nonofficer Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan") is amended as follows:

        1.      Section 3 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

        The stock subject to this Plan shall be the Company's Common Stock (the
        "Common Stock") presently authorized but unissued or subsequently
        acquired by the Company. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 6,
        the aggregate amount of Common Stock to be delivered upon the exercise
        of all options granted under this Plan shall not exceed 1,585,000 shares
        of Common Stock. If any option granted under this Plan shall expire or
        be surrendered, exchanged for another option, cancelled or terminated
        for any reason without having been exercised in full, the unpurchased
        shares subject thereto shall thereupon again be available for purposes
        of this Plan, including for replacement options which may be granted in
        exchange for such expired, surrendered, exchanged, cancelled or
        terminated options.



        The date of the adoption of this Amendment No. 4 by the Board of
Directors of the Company is December 1, 1998. The effective date of this
Amendment No. 4 shall be December 1, 1998, the date of adoption by the Board of
Directors.