alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 19.815 How may I contest a proposed debarment?

If you as a respondent wish to contest a proposed debarment, you or your representative must provide the debarring official with information in opposition to the proposed debarment. You may do this orally or in writing, but any information provided orally that you consider important must also be submitted in writing for the official record.
Order entered June 1, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01015-CR

CALVIN ULESS KENNEDY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-76824-R

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the January 19, 2016 motion of 

Ronald L. Goranson for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the 

Clerk of the Court to remove Ronald L. Goranson as counsel of record for appellant. We 

DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to

Calvin Uless Kennedy, TDCJ No. 02021345, Middleton Unit, 13055 FM 3522, Abilene, Texas, 

79601.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
BEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0278

APPLICATION OF ALASKA JUNEAU AERONAUTICS, INC. d/b/a

WINGS OF ALASKA FOR REISSUANCE OF ITS CERTIFICATE

OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY

____________________________________________________________________________

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Charles Hill

Director of Operations

SeaPort Airlines, Inc.

2540 Winchester Rd.

Memphis, TN 38103

Tel (901) 620-4412

Fax (901) 662-4403

chuck@seaportair.com

November, 8 2010

Application of

ALASKA JUNEAU AERONAUTICS, 

INC. d/b/a

WINGS OF ALASKA

For reissuance of its certificate of 

public convenience and necessity
BEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0278

APPLICATION OF ALASKA JUNEAU AERONAUTICS, INC. d/b/a

WINGS OF ALASKA FOR REISSUANCE OF ITS CERTIFICATE

OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY

_____________________________________________________________________________

Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. d/b/a Wings of Alaska (AJA) pursuant to section 

215.4 of the Department’s Economic Regulations, 14 CFR 215.4, requests reissuance of its 

certificate of public convenience and necessity in the name SeaPort Airlines, Inc. d/b/a 

Wings of Alaska. AJA uses the trade name SeaPort Airlines in the provision of a majority of 

its air transportation services; it is changing its corporate name to SeaPort Airlines, Inc. to 

harmonize the company’s corporate and business names.

In support of this application, AJA states as follows:

1. Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. holds a certificate of public convenience and 

necessity authorizing it to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of 

persons, property and mail; see Order 84-8-109 (original issuance of certificate) 

and Order 98-7-6 (reissuance of certificate). AJA provides domestic scheduled 

and charter service pursuant to this authority. For the past several years all of 

AJA’s services in the lower 48 states have been provided under the trade name 

SeaPort Airlines, which was registered to AJA under Part 215 on April 25, 2008.

2. To harmonize its corporate name with the name in which its services are 

provided, AJA has elected to rename the corporation SeaPort Airlines, Inc. 

Appended as Attachment A is a copy of the Certificate of Amended and Restated 

Articles filed with the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, 

Application of

ALASKA JUNEAU AERONAUTICS, 

INC. d/b/a

WINGS OF ALASKA

For reissuance of its certificate of 

public convenience and necessity

Attachment A
Attachment B
2012 Executive Officer Bonus Program



 Exhibit 10.8 
 2012 EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PROGRAM 
 2012 Target Bonus 

On June 26, 2012, the Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors of NeoPhotonics Corporation (the
“Company”) approved target bonuses for 2012 for its “named executive officers” (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission) in the amounts set forth below.

  

									
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	2012 Target
Bonus
Percentage (1)	 	  	2012 Target
Bonus Amount	 
	 Timothy S. Jenks, President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	 	%    75	  	  	$	253,440	  
	 James D. Fay, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	 	45	  	  	 	131,328	  
	 Dr. Raymond Cheung, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
	  	 	40	  	  	 	119,842	(2)
	 Dr. Wupen Yuen, Vice President of Product Development and Engineering
	  	 	40	  	  	 	96,000	  
	 Benjamin L. Sitler, Vice President of Global Sales
	  	 	40	  	  	 	92,570	  

  

	(1)	Target bonuses percentages are expressed as a percentage of 2012 base salary. 


	(2)	The Target Bonus Amount is calculated in U.S. dollars at the applicable exchange rate and Dr. Cheung’s actual bonus, if any, will be paid in RMB.


 The Compensation Committee structured target bonuses for the fiscal year 2012 so that payouts would be determined based in part
on achievement against corporate objectives, including: 
  

	 	•	 	 U.S. GAAP revenue for the fiscal year 2012; 


  

	 	•	 	 Non-GAAP gross margin for the fiscal year 2012; 


  

	 	•	 	 Non-GAAP income from operations for the fiscal year 2012; and 



 

	 	•	 	 U.S. GAAP revenue from new products for the fiscal year 2012. 


 For target bonuses for the fiscal year 2012, the Compensation Committee established performance goals for each of the above metrics that are aligned with corporate objectives. While these various
performance goals were selected, they are merely non-binding guidelines to be used as one factor in determining the actual bonuses earned. 
 It
is expected that, in the first quarter of 2013, the Compensation Committee will review the Company’s fiscal year 2012 corporate performance against each of the corporate goals and other aspects of corporate and individual performance to
determine any actual bonus awards for performance related to the fiscal year 2012.
#### Killian v. Killian

*McCrea & McCrea,*for plaintiff.

*Hilton A. Russell,*for defendant.

February 18, 1953.

Shughart, P. J.,

The complaint in the above action in divorce was filed May 17, 1951, and a general appearance was entered on behalf of defendant on May 24, 1951, pursuant to a written power of attorney, as required by local rules of court.

On application of plaintiff, a master was appointed July 31, 1951, and a hearing held September 11,1951. An adjourned meeting, in which the testimony consisted of one page, dealing with the matter of support paid by defendant to plaintiff for the children born to the parties, only, was held on May 8, 1952.

The report of the master was filed July 18, 1952.

The matter was submitted to the court on February 17, 1953.

Despite the apparent lack of diligence in the prosecution of the action, the record contains no explanation for the delay, neither the delay between the first and second hearings nor the delay in submitting the matter to the court after the master’s report was filed.

Under the circumstances, we feel that an affidavit should be filed by plaintiff, explaining the reasons for *416the delay, and further, stating whether or not there has been a resumption of cohabitation between the parties in the meanwhile. If the latter is a fact, then plaintiff should apply for an amendment to the complaint and the matter be resubmitted to the master for further hearing.

If there has been no resumption of cohabitation, then upon the filing of the affidavit, a rule will be issued on defendant to show cause why a decree in divorce shall not be entered as prayed for.

And now, February 18, 1953, at 11:50 a.m., pursuant to the foregoing opinion, plaintiff is directed to file an affidavit setting forth the reasons for the delay in the prosecution of the action; thereafter, a rule is granted upon defendant to show cause why a decree in divorce shall not be entered, said rule to.be served upon defendant by registered mail, return receipt requested, and to be returnable 10 days after service. If no answer is filed to the rule, the matter may be submitted to the court upon furnishing proof of the service of the rule.
§ 150.3 Determination of assessed companies. ( a ) The determination that a bank holding company or a nonbank financial company is an assessed company will be made by the Department.
( b ) The Department will apply the following principles in determining whether a company is an assessed company: ( 1 ) For tiered bank holding companies for which a holding company owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, other holding companies, the assessed company shall be the top-tier, regulated holding company.
( 2 ) In situations where more than one top-tier, regulated bank holding company has a legal authority for control of a U.S. bank, each of the top-tier regulated holding companies shall be designated as an assessed company.
( 3 ) In situations where a company has not filed four consecutive quarters of the financial reports referenced above for the most recent quarters (or two consecutive years for annual filers of the FR Y-7Q or successor form), such as may be true for companies that recently converted to a bank holding company, the Department will use, at its discretion, other financial or annual reports filed by the company, such as Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, to determine a company's total consolidated assets.
( 4 ) In situations where a company does not report total consolidated assets in its public reports or where a company uses a financial reporting methodology other than U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to report on its U.S. operations, the Department will use, at its discretion, any comparable financial information that the Department may require from the company for this determination.
( c ) Any company that the Department determines is an assessed company on a given determination date will be an assessed company for the entire assessment period related to such determination date, and will be subject to the full assessment fee for that assessment period, regardless of any changes in the company's assets or other attributes that occur after the determination date.
§ 19.505 Who uses the EPLS? ( a ) Federal agency officials use the *EPLS* to determine whether to enter into a transaction with a person, as required under § 19.430.
( b ) Participants also may, but are not required to, use the *EPLS* to determine if— ( 1 ) Principals of their transactions are excluded or disqualified, as required under § 19.320; or
( 2 ) Persons with whom they are entering into covered transactions at the next lower tier are excluded or disqualified.
( c ) The *EPLS* is available to the general public.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 205.22 How are accurate clearance patterns maintained? ( a ) If a State has knowledge, at any time, that a clearance pattern no longer reflects a Federal assistance program's actual clearance activity, or if a Federal assistance program undergoes operational changes that may affect clearance activity, the State must notify us, develop a new clearance pattern, and certify that the new pattern corresponds to the Federal assistance program's clearance activity. Clearance patterns will remain in effect until a new clearance pattern is certified.
( b ) An authorized State official must certify that a clearance pattern corresponds to the clearance activity of the Federal assistance program to which it is applied. An authorized State official must re-certify the accuracy of a clearance pattern at least every five years. If a State develops a clearance pattern for a bank account or a specific type of payment, or on another basis, as set forth in § 205.21, we may prescribe other requirements for re-certifying the accuracy of the clearance pattern. A State can begin to use a new clearance pattern on the date the new clearance pattern is certified.
#### § 1010.960 Disclosure.

All reports required under this chapter and all records of such reports are specifically exempted from disclosure under section 552 of Title 5, United States Code.
#### § 1010.500 General.

Sections 1010.505 through 1010.540 of this subpart E were issued pursuant to the requirements of section 314 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Each financial institution (as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2) or (c)(1)) should refer to its chapter X part for any additional special information sharing procedures.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS NINE MONTH YEAR TO DATE SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM AMERICAN BIOGENETIC SCIENCES, INC. 1998 10-Q FOR THE THIRD
QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,695,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  250,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    496,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,488,000
<PP&E>                                       2,345,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,705,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,677,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          686,000
<BONDS>                                      3,409,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,926,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,677,000
<SALES>                                        853,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               853,000
<CGS>                                          315,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  315,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,663,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             496,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,572,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,572,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,572,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KATHE BURGER, PHILIP J. BURGER, SARAH 

B. BURGER, PETER M. BURGER, ELIZABETH 

A. BURGER, CHAPMAN/SPRING GARDEN, LLC, 

CHANEY-FRYE #4, LLC, LAROSE PROPERTIES, 

INC., MICHELLE AGAPION MORGAN, ESTATE 

OF RICHARD AUSTIN LANE, THOMAS G. 

HAYES, individually and on behalf of the 

Personal Representative of the Estate of Harold 

W. Hayes, HISTORIC WAFCO CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee

EMILY ELIZABETH OWEN, GCP REAL IV, LLC, 

GUILFORD BUILDERS SUPPLY CO., JESC, 

LLC,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2024-1249

______________________

Case: 24-1249 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2024
2 BURGER V. US

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-01596-LAS, 1:19-cv-01942-LAS, Senior 

Judge Loren A. Smith. 

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 13, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 13, 2024

Case: 24-1249 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2024
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40786 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN HUERTA

- TORRES, also known as Juan Manuel Huerta

- Torres, also known as Antonio Martinez

- Vega, also known as Juan Manuel Huerta , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16

- CR

- 972

- 1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Juan Huerta

- Torres has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Huerta

- Torres has filed response s . We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Huerta

- Torres ’ s

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 21, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40786 Document: 00514523903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2018No. 17

- 40786

2 response s . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. S ee 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-40786 Document: 00514523903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2018
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 9:03 a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's resolution activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of  Director Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), seconded by Vice Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, concurred in by Ms. Julie L. Williams, acting in the place and stead of Director John C. Dugan (Comptroller of the Currency), Director John E. Bowman (Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), and Chairman Sheila C. Bair, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)).

The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Dated: August 11, 2009.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-19492 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
40012.

#### SURGENER v. AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff in error excepts to a judgment of the Fulton Superior Court affirming an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board on a change in condition. The question for determination in this court is whether or not the record contains sufficient evidence to support the board’s finding of fact that the claimant has had a change in condition since the approval of the original agreement to pay compensation, and that any physical disability that he presently has is not related to his original accidental injury. The only medical testimony before the board at the time of its reconsideration was the testimony of one doctor who had first examined the claimant approximately six months after the injury. This doctor testified that claimant then “appeared to be reasonably close to a normal individual and had he more severe handicaps before, then certainly he must have recovered.” The witness further stated that claimant told him at the time of this examination he was “a hundred percent better” than he had been “right after the fall.” This evi*574dence supports the finding of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Since the issue here is one of fact, the finding of the board, is conclusive in this case, and the superior court did not err in affirming the award on appeal. See *Code*§ 114-710, and the numerous cases listed under the catchwords, “Conclusiveness of findings.”

Decided April 3, 1963.

*Poole, Pearce Ac Hall, Martin H. Rubin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin Ac Carr, Charles L. Drew,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 92 Received in Senate (RDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 92

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 4 (legislative day), July 10), 1995

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
            Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, August 
4, 1995, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader, or his 
designee, it stand adjourned until noon on Wednesday, September 6, 
1995, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified
to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this resolution, whichever 
occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day 
beginning on Saturday, August 5, 1995, through Saturday, August 19, 
1995, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader, or his 
designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand recessed or 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, September 5, 1995, or until such time 
on that day as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee 
in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 4 (legislative 
      day, August 3), 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```