alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41178

Conference Calendar

 

IN RE: MARION HODGE; WAYNE HODGE,

Movants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-MC-44

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Wayne Hodge and Marion Hodge purport to appeal the district

court’s denial of their motion for leave to file a complaint,

asserting their rights as “true heirs” of Pelham Humphries to the

land, oil, minerals, and mineral rights of 4428 acres of land in

Jefferson County, Texas, known as the “Pelham Humphries Survey.”

We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua sponte if

necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.

1987). A “multiparty pro se notice of appeal [is] not effective

as to any of the pro se parties that did not sign the [notice of]

appeal.” Carter v. Stalder, 60 F.3d 238, 239 (5th Cir. 1995)
No. 98-41178

-2-

(citing Mikeska v. Collins, 928 F.2d 126, 126 (5th Cir. 1991)). 

The notice of appeal, signed only by Wayne Hodge is not

sufficient to bring before this court the appeal of Marion Hodge. 

See Mikeska, 928 F.2d at 126 (notice signed by only one pro se

party not sufficient to bring appeals of three other pro se

parties before this court). Accordingly, we DISMISS Marion

Hodge’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

 Wayne Hodge contends that the district court erred in

denying his motion for leave to file a complaint. He asserts

that the limitations bar to his lawsuit is inapplicable because

the judgments were obtained by fraud on the court, which was not

discovered previously. He contends also that res judicata and

collateral estoppel do not preclude his complaint.

Wayne Hodge’s arguments were foreclosed by this court’s

decision in 1968. See Humphries v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 393

F.2d 69, 73 (5th Cir. 1968)(the “failure of appellants and their

predecessors to assert any claim to the land, to use it, or pay

the taxes confirms that the original Humphries grantee, whether

his name was Pelham or William, at some time in the past parted

with title”). We repeated that conclusion in 1991. See Peregoy

v. Amoco Prod. Co., 929 F.2d 196, 197 (5th Cir. 1991). The

district court did not err in denying the motion. The decision

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; AFFIRMED IN

PART.
# Hollan d& Knigh t

80 0 17t h Street , NW , Suit e 110 0 | Washington , D C 2000 6 | T202.955.300 0 | F 202.955.556 4 Hollan d & Knigh t LL P | www.hklaw.co m Anita M . Mosne r (202)419-260 4 anita.mosner@hklaw.co m Octobe r17 , 201 2 BYELECTRONI C MAI L Mr . Rober

t Finamor e Actin g Chief , Foreig n Ai rCarrie rLicensin g Divisio n (X-45 ) U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 0 Re : Applicatio n o f Etiha d Airway s P.J.S.C . fo ra n Amendmen t o f it s Foreig n Ai rCarrie r Permi t an d a n Exemptio n (Docke t OST-2005-23345 ) Dea rMr . Finamore : ByApplicatio n date d Octobe r11 , 2012 , Etiha d Airways , P.J.S.C . applie d fo ra n Amendmen t o f it s Foreig n Ai rCarrie rPermi t an d a n Exemption . Etiha d Airway s ha s polle d al l intereste d parties , an d n o part yha s objecte d t o th e Application . Fo rthi s reason , th e Applican t respectfull yrequest s tha t th e Departmen t promptl ygran t th e requeste d authority . Respectfull ySubmitted , Hollan d & Knight , LL P

Anit a M . Mosne r Attorne yfo rEtiha d Airway s

Atlanta | Bosto n | Chicag o | For t Lauderdal e | Jacksonvill e | Lakelan d | Lo s Angele s | Miam i | Ne

wYor k | Norther n Virgini a | Orland o Portlan d | Sa n Francisco | Tallahasse e | Tamp a | Washington , D. C | Wes t Pal m Beac hCERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb ycertif ytha t I hav e thi s dat e serve d th e foregoin g lette ro n th e person s identifie d belo w b ycausin g a cop yt o b e sen t b yelectroni cmail . robert.wirick@aa.co m francis.heil@aa.co m james.kaleigh@aa.co m jrichardson@johnlrichardson.co m (Counse l fo rAmerije t International ) anbird@fedex.co m sllunsford@fedex.co m matwood@cozen.co m (Counse l fo rKalitt a Air ) charters@evergreenairlines.com rpommer@atlasair.co m kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.co m lachter@starpower.ne t (Counse l fo rASTA R Ai rCargo ) howard.kass@usairways.co m benjamin.slocum@usairways.co m anita.mosner@hklaw.co m (Counse l fo rUnite d Parce l Service ) dan.weiss@united.co m rbkeiner@crowell.co m (Counse l fo rUnite d Airlines ) gmurphy@crowell.co m (Counse l fo rUnite d Airlines ) lhalloway@crowell.co m (Counse l fo rUnite d Airlines ) mlbenge@zsrlaw.co m (Counse l fo rWorl d Airways ) rsilverberg@sgbdc.co m (Counse l fo rAB X Air ) sascha.vanderbellen@delta.co m urskr@state.go v john.allen@faa.go v todd.homan@dot.go v peter.irvine@dot.go v

Jennife rM . Nowa k Octobe r17 , 201 2

#1173214 3 v l
#### § 48.610 Controlled substance.

*Controlled substance* means a controlled substance in schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812), and as further defined by regulation at 21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLENN MCCLOUD, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

STEVE LAKE, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-15504 

D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01072-JLT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted December 11, 2019***

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 

Federal prisoner Glenn McCloud appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-15504 

petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and 

we affirm.

McCloud challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was 

sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time for committing the 

prohibited act of disruptive behavior most like possession of a hazardous tool. He 

argues that he did not receive advance written notice of the charges, that he was 

denied the right to call his requested witness, and that the disciplinary hearing 

officers were not impartial. We conclude that there was no due process violation. 

The incident report McCloud received described the factual situation that was the 

basis for the charge and thus “adequately performed the functions of notice” 

articulated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974). See Bostic v. 

Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by 

Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The record does not 

reflect that McCloud was denied an impartial decision maker. See Liteky v. United 

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Moreover, on this record, any error that resulted 

from McCloud’s inability to call his requested witness was harmless, see Brecht v. 

Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993), and the record shows that “some 

evidence” supported the hearing officer’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 

U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Finally, we reject McCloud’s various challenges to the 

“some evidence” standard set forth in Hill because the Supreme Court “retains the 
3 19-15504 

prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” See Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 

876, 880 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.
§ 42.4 Investigation. ( a ) All allegations of liability under § 42.3 shall be promptly referred to the investigating official.
( b ) If an investigating official concludes that a subpoena pursuant to the authority conferred by 31 U.S.C. 3804(a) is warranted— ( 1 ) The subpoena so issued shall notify the person to whom it is addressed of the authority under which the subpoena is issued and shall identify the records or documents sought;
( 2 ) The investigating official may designate a person to act on his or her behalf to receive the documents sought; and
( 3 ) The person receiving the subpoena shall be required to tender to the investigating official or the person designated to receive the documents a certification that the documents sought have been produced, or that the documents are not available and the reasons therefor, or that the documents, suitably identified, have been withheld based upon the assertion of an identified privilege.
( c ) If the investigating official concludes that an action under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act may be warranted, the investigating official shall submit a report containing the findings and conclusions of the investigation to the reviewing official.
( d ) Nothing in this section shall preclude or limit an investigating official's discretion to refer allegations directly to the Department of Justice for suit under the False Claims Act or other civil relief, or to defer or postpone a report or referral to the reviewing official to avoid interference with a criminal investigation or prosecution.
( e ) Nothing in this section modifies any responsibility of an investigating official to report violations of criminal law to the Attorney General.
§ 21.120 Educational and vocational training services. ( a ) *Purposes.* The purposes of providing educational and vocational training services are to enable a veteran eligible for, and entitled to, services and assistance under Chapter 31 to: ( 1 ) Meet the requirements for employment in the occupational objective established in the IWRP (Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan);
( 2 ) Provide incidental training which is necessary to achieve the employment objective in the IEAP (Individualized Employment Assistance Plan);
( 3 ) Provide incidental training needed to achieve the goals of an IILP (Individualized Independent Living Plan); or
( 4 ) Provide training services necessary to implement an IEEP (Individualized Extended Evaluation Plan).
( b ) *Selection of courses.* VA will generally select courses of study and training, completion of which usually results in a diploma, certificate, degree, qualification for licensure, or employment. If such courses are not available in the area in which the veteran resides, or if they are available but not accessible to the veteran, other arrangements may be made. Such arrangements may include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Relocation of the veteran to another area in which necessary services are available, or
( 2 ) Use of an individual instructor to provide necessary training. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3107)
( c ) *Charges for education and training services.* The cost of education and training services will be one of the factors considered in selecting a facility when: ( 1 ) There is more than one facility in the area in which the veteran resides which: ( i ) Meets requirements for approval under §§ 21.292 through 21.298;
( ii ) Can provide the education and training services, and other supportive services specified in the veteran's plan; and
( iii ) Is within reasonable commuting distance; or
( 2 ) The veteran wishes to train at a suitable facility in another area, even though training can be provided at a suitable facility in the area in which the veteran resides.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(7), 3115(a))
[49 FR 40814, Oct. 18, 1984; 50 FR 9622, Mar. 11, 1985]
§ 42.20 Disclosure of documents. ( a ) Upon written request to the reviewing official, the defendant may review any relevant and material documents, transcripts, records, and other materials that relate to the allegations set out in the complaint and upon which the findings and conclusions of the investigating official under § 42.4(b) of this part are based, unless the documents are subject to a privilege under Federal law. Upon payment of fees for duplication, the defendant may obtain copies of the documents.
( b ) Upon written request to the reviewing official, the defendant also may obtain a copy of all exculpatory information in the possession of the reviewing official or investigating official relating to the allegations in the complaint, even if it is contained in a document that would otherwise be privileged. If the document would otherwise be privileged, only that portion containing exculpatory information must be disclosed.
( c ) The notice sent to the Attorney General from the reviewing official as described in § 42.5 of this part is not discoverable under any circumstances.
( d ) The defendant may file a motion to compel disclosure of the documents subject to the provision of this section. The motion may only be filed with the ALJ following the filing of an answer pursuant to § 42.9 of this part.
1011/2015 Mab'ice 100-Fiight Envira-ment- DJI Wiki 

Matrice 100-Flight Environment 

FromDllWiki 

Once pre-flight preparation is complete, it is recommended to use the flight simulator to learn how to fly 

safely. Ensure that all flights are carried out in an open area. 

1. Do not use the aircraft in adverse weather conditions including raining, snowing, fog, and wind speeds 

exceeding 10 m/s. 

2. Only fly in open areas. Tall buildings and steel structures may affect the accuracy of the compass and the 

GPS signal. 

3. Avoid flying near obstacles, crowds, high voltage power lines, trees and bodies of water. 

4. Avoid flying in area with high levels of electromagnetism, including mobile phone base stations and 

radio transmission towers. 

5. Aircraft and battery performance is subject to environment factor such as air density and temperature. Be 

very careful when flying over 14700 feet (4500 meters) above sea level as the battery and aircraft 

performance may be reduced. 

6. The MIOO cannot operate in P-Mode within the Earth's polar regions. 

Retrieved from "http://wiki.dji.com/enlindex.php?title=Matrice _1 00-Flight_ Environment&oldid=23264" 

• This page was last modified on 21 July 2015, at 04:56. 

• This page has been accessed 202 times. 

http://wiki.dji.oom/en/inclex.phptMab'ice_100-Fiight_Environment 1/1
§ 42.24 Protective order. ( a ) A party or a prospective witness or deponent may file a motion for a protective order with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing, seeking to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence.
( b ) In issuing a protective order, the ALJ may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) That the discovery not be had;
( 2 ) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
( 3 ) That discovery may be had only through a method of discovery other than that requested;
( 4 ) That certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters;
( 5 ) That discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the ALJ;
( 6 ) That the contents of discovery or evidence be sealed;
( 7 ) That a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the ALJ;
( 8 ) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, commercial information, or facts pertaining to any criminal investigation, proceeding, or other administrative investigation only be disclosed in a designated way; or
( 9 ) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the ALJ.
#### STATE ex rel. CHRIST E. SINN v. W. S. CARVER.1

May 29, 1914.

Nos. 18,795—(274).

Case followed.

Upon the relation of Christ E. Sinn, the district court for Martin county granted its writ of *habeas corpus*directed to the sheriff of that county, requiring him to show cause why relator was detained in custody. The matter was heard before Quinn, J., who quashed the writ and remanded relator to custody. From the order discharging the writ, relator appealed. Reversed.

*Dunn & Carlson*and *Frank B. Kellogg,*for appellant.

*Lyndon A. Smith,*Attorney General, *C. Louis Weeks,*Assistant Attorney General, and *E. C. Dean,*County Attorney, for respondent.

1

 Reported in 147 N. W. 661.

Per Curiam.

This case is similar to the one of State v. Carver, supra, page 5, 147 N. W. .660, reversing the order of the court below. A like result must follow here.

Order reversed.
EXHIBIT # 10.48

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                                    INDENTURE

      This Amendment No. 1 to the Indenture, dated as of July 31, 2003 (this
"Amendment"), is to the Indenture, dated as of October 1, 2002 (the
"Indenture"), by and between Molecular Diagnostics, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company") and each of the holders of the Company's 12% Convertible Secured
Promissory Notes (said Notes being hereinafter referred to as the "Notes" and
said holders being hereinafter referred to as the "Noteholders").

                                   WITNESSETH

      WHEREAS, the Noteholders purchased the Notes from the Company in
connection with a bridge financing in the aggregate principal amount of up to
$4,000,000;

      WHEREAS, the Noteholders purchased the Notes from the Company pursuant to
certain financing documents, including a Note Subscription Agreement, 12%
Convertible Secured Promissory Note, Security Agreement, Collateral Sharing
Agreement, Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock and the Indenture
(collectively, the "Financing Documents");

      WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Financing Documents, the total
outstanding principal balance and accrued and unpaid interest on the Notes were
due July 31, 2003;

      WHEREAS, pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of the
Financing Documents, the Company and Noteholders desire to amend the Indenture
as hereinafter set forth.

      NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Noteholders agree
as follows:

      1.    Section 1 (c) is amended by deleting the date "July 31, 2003" and
            inserting the new date of "July 31, 2004."

      2.    Section 2 is amended by deleting "$0.60" and inserting "$0.45."

      3.    Investor hereby waives any Events of Defaults by the Company under
            the Financing Documents.

      4.    Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given
            to them in the Financing Documents.

      5.    This Amendment may be executed in counterparts and each such
            counterpart shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and
            all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same
            instrument.


<PAGE>




      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly
      executed as of the 31st day of July, 2003.

                                          MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, INC.


                                          By: _____________________________

                                          Name: ___________________________

                                          Title: ____________________________



                                          INVESTORS


                                          ________________________________


                                          ________________________________


                                          ________________________________


                                          ________________________________
§ 21.448 Recipient reporting requirements. ( a ) Recipients must submit to VA a quarterly report 30 days after the close of each Federal fiscal quarter of the grant period. The report must include the following information: ( 1 ) A detailed record of the time involved and resources expended administering the VEPFS program.
( 2 ) The number of Veterans served, including demographics of this population.
( 3 ) The types of employment assistance provided.
( 4 ) A full accounting of VEPFS grant funds used or unused during the quarter.
( 5 ) A comparison of accomplishments related to the objectives of the award.
( 6 ) An explanation for any goals not met.
( 7 ) An analysis and explanation for any cost overruns.
( b ) VA may request additional reports in the Terms and Conditions of the grant agreement if necessary to allow VA to fully and effectively assess program accountability and effectiveness.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 3119, 2 CFR 200.327-200.328)
Exhibit 4.54

 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE RAGNAROK ONLINE GAME LICENSE AGREEMENT

 

This Third Amendment (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into on February 27th, 2015 (hereinafter called “Effective Date”), by and between Gravity Co., Ltd.(hereinafter called “Licensor”), a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea and having its offices at 15F, Nuritkum Square R&D Tower, 1605, Sangam-Dong, Mapo-Gu, Seoul, Korea, and PT. LYTO DATARINDO FORTUNA., a corporation having its principal place of business at Jalan Arteri Pos Pengumben NO.8 RT 005/08 Kelurahan Sukabumi Selatan Kecamatan Kebon Jeruk Kota Administrasi, JAKARTA BARAT 11560 INDONESIA (hereinafter referred to as “Licensee”).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee (“Parties” collectively) entered into a Ragnarok Online Game License Agreement (“The Agreement”), dated on February 27th, 2010.

 

WHEREAS, Parties entered into a First Amendment to the Ragnarok Online Game License Agreement (“First Amendment”), dated on October 1st, 2011.

 

WHEREAS, Parties entered into Second Amendment to the Ragnarok Online Game License Agreement (“Second Amendment”), dated on February 27th, 2013.

 

WHEREAS, this Amendment is supplemental to the Agreement, and the Parties enter into this Amendment, to amend certain provisions in the Agreement.

 

WHEREAS, Parties hereto desires to amend The Agreement as specified below.

 

AGREEMENT

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants contained herein, Parties agree as follows:

 

1. Renewal Term

 

Parties agreed to extend the Agreement for Six (6) months from the expiration date of The Agreement with conditions stated in this Amendment. The newly extended term of The Agreement shall be from February 27th, 2015 to August 26th, 2015 without any License Fee.

 

2. Continuing Effectiveness of The Agreement

 

Except as expressly set forth herein, this Amendment shall not by implication or

 

1











 

otherwise alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms, conditions, obligations, covenants or agreements contained in The Agreement amended by its First Amendment and Second Amendment, all of which are ratified and affirmed in all respects and shall continue in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Parties have executed this Amendment on the date first above written.

 

 

	
Gravity Co., Ltd.
    	
PT.   LYTO DATARINDO FORTUNA
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name: 
    	
Hyun Chul Park
    	
Name:
    	
Andi Suryanto
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
CEO
    	
Title:
    	
CEO
    
					


 

2