alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50245-50246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23401]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production 
Act of 1993--Cooperative Research Group on Clean Diesel V

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 25, 2009, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research 
Institute--Cooperative Research Group on Clean Diesel V (``Clean Diesel 
V'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, China 
Automotive Engineering Research Institute Co. Ltd. (CAERI), Chongqing, 
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Clean Diesel V intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 10, 2008, Clean Diesel V filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on February 25, 2008 (73 FR 10064).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 17, 
2009. A notice was published in the Federal

[[Page 50246]]

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 3, 2009 (74 FR 
38474).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-23401 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60627

Summary Calendar

Shafiqul Islam, 

Petitioner,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 526 104

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Shafiqul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review 

of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his 

appeal of the decision and order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60627 Document: 00515720835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2021
No. 19-60627

2

Torture (CAT) relief. Because Islam does not substantively challenge the 

BIA’s dismissal of either his CAT claim or his claim that the IJ violated his 

due process rights, he has abandoned those claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 

324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Although Islam argues that the IJ lacked sufficient justification to 

require that he provide reasonably available evidence in support of his 

application and, alternatively, that the IJ erroneously determined that such 

evidence was reasonably available, he did not raise these arguments before 

the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Yang v. Holder, 664 

F.3d 580, 588 (5th Cir. 2011); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Islam fails to show that 

the denial of asylum was unsupported by substantial evidence. See Zhang v. 

Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). He, therefore, necessarily also 

fails to show that he was entitled to withholding of removal. See Yang, 664 

F.3d at 588-89.

The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in 

part for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 19-60627 Document: 00515720835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2021
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1589

___________________________ Annie R. Irving lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Dierbergs Markets, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: September 21, 2023 Filed: October 6, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Annie Irving appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. After careful review of the record and the

1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the grant of summary judgment was

proper. See Said v. Mayo Clinic, 44 F.4th 1142, 1147 (8th Cir. 2022) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Appellee’s motion to strike is denied as moot.

______________________________

-2-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40267

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERNESTO VALLES MORENO, also known as Rocky,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:09-CR-100-4

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ernesto Valles Moreno 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). 

Valles Moreno has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Valles Moreno’s

response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-40267 Document: 00512146729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
No. 12-40267

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Valles Moreno’s

motions for oral argument and appointment of new counsel are DENIED.

2

 Case: 12-40267 Document: 00512146729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
Report Number: 2K6-901-13958-05-01 Page 45 of 45

APPENDIX A. August 9, 2006 Letter from the Patoka CWS in Illinois
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

David Hilton and Cindy Hilton, * From the 350th District Court

of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 12750-D.

Vs. No. 11-22-00262-CV * March 16, 2023

5J Oilfield Services, LLC, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal and 

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against the party incurring same.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1621
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus J. LEE STURGIS, Claimant - Appellant, andCERTAIN REAL PROPERTY CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 0781, PAGE 715, IREDELL COUNTY PUBLIC REGISTRY; GRANTEE: J. LEE STURGIS; $2,140.00 IN U. S. FUNDS AND OTHER PROPERTY OF J. LEE STURGIS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-81-H) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: December 29, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 J. Lee Sturgis, Appellant Pro Se. B. Frederic Williams, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: J. Lee Sturgis appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his belated motion contesting forfeiture proceedings. We have reviewed the record andthe magistrate judge’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. United States v. Sturgis , No. CA-94-81-H (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 4.68 Amputation rule.

The combined rating for disabilities of an extremity shall not exceed the rating for the amputation at the elective level, were amputation to be performed. For example, the combined evaluations for disabilities below the knee shall not exceed the 40 percent evaluation, diagnostic code 5165. This 40 percent rating may be further combined with evaluation for disabilities above the knee but not to exceed the above the knee amputation elective level. Painful neuroma of a stump after amputation shall be assigned the evaluation for the elective site of reamputation.
#### Charles G. Patterson, Appellant, *v.*Seneca D. Powell, Respondent.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

March, 1900.)

Attorney and client — Negligence of former in failing to plead the Statute of Frauds — Counterclaim.

Where the negligence of an attorney, in failing to plead the Statute of Frauds as a defense to an action brought against his client, results in the client’s entire defeat therein, the latter may subsequently counterclaim his resulting damages against the attorney’s demand for the value of his services in that action.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, dismissing the complaint and awarding the defendant $1,813.97 upon his counterclaim. The action was by an attorney for services; the defense a denial of their value, and a counterclaim for damages for negligence in pleading to a prior action against the client. In that action one Julia M. Crane had sued Seneca D. Powell for a breach of an agreement to take rooms and board for one year from November 1, 1887. The agreement was *21made on October, 1887. Crane recovered of Powell in that action, the Court of Appeals holding (Crane v. Powell, 139 N. Y. 379), that the agreement was one which, by its terms, was not to be performed within a year. That, as the plaintiff had not pleaded the statute, he could not raise the question under a general denial; and that, having allowed the plaintiff to prove a verbal agreement, a motion to dishnss the complaint, on the ground that the agreement was void, because not in writing, was properly denied. As a result of his defeat, Powell paid Crane $1,352.89, to recover which, with interest, Powell interposed the present counterclaim to Ms attorney’s action for services.

Walter K. Barton (Henry Major, of counsel), for appellant.

Robert C. Taylor, for respondent.

Firzsmcoirs, Ch. J.

In view of the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Porter v. Wormser, 94 N. Y. 431, wMch was decided prior to the drawing of the answer by plaintiff in Crane v. Powell, and of the decision of the same court in Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N. Y. 538, decided subsequent to the service of said answer, but before the trial of said action, it was clearly the duty of the plaintiff, as the defendant’s lawyer, to set up in said answer affirmatively the Statute of Frauds, as that was the defense he intended to rely upon, and wMch was not available because of his failure to allege it in the answer drawn and served by him as the defendant’s attorney in said action. His failure to do so was clearly a negligent act, and rendered all of the services, rendered by him as such attorney, valueless; besides, the defendant, because of such negligence, had the right to recover from him all damages consequent upon such negligent act. In this action such damages- (as the record shows) amounted to the sum of over $1,800, set up as a counterclaim herein.

In our judgment the trial justice was right in dismissing the complaint, and directing judgment for the defendant upon the counterclaim, and the same must be affirmed, with costs.

Coklah and O’jDwyee, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Dennis Deegan, Appellant, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Oourt of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the defendant upon a trial had before the court without a jury.

Action to recover damages claimed to have been sustained in consequence of the defendant’s alleged negligence.

La Fetra *&*Glaze (E. B. La Fetra, of counsel), for appellant.

Henry A. Robinson and John T. Little, Jr., for respondent.

Giegebich, J.

The only questions involved upon this appeal arise from a determination of the facts, as to which there was a *744conflict of testimony. The finding of the justice in favor of the defendant is warranted by the evidence, and we see no reason for disturbing such determination in the absence of the elements which are requisite to a review of the facts. Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 522.

As we are unable to discover any ground for disturbing the judgment, it should be affirmed, with costs.

Beekman, P. J., and O’Gorman, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>   1

                        DEP CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   Three Months Ended             Six Months Ended
                                        January 31,                   January 31,
                                  ----------------------       -----------------------
                                   1997           1996           1997           1996
                                  ------        --------       --------       --------
<S>                                <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>
Net income (loss).............       $64         ($1,807)       ($1,999)       ($2,190)
                                   =====          ======         ======         ======
Shares:
Adjusted weighted average  
  shares outstanding               6,804           6,251          6,528          6,251
                                   =====          ======         ======         ======

Net income (loss) per share...     $0.01          ($0.29)        ($0.31)        ($0.35)
                                   =====          ======         ======         ======
</TABLE>




                                       Exhibit 11
#### § 4.67 Pelvic bones.

The variability of residuals following these fractures necessitates rating on specific residuals, faulty posture, limitation of motion, muscle injury, painful motion of the lumbar spine, manifest by muscle spasm, mild to moderate sciatic neuritis, peripheral nerve injury, or limitation of hip motion.
§ 0.602 Core Characteristics. While Core Values define VA employees, the Core Characteristics define what VA stands for and what VA strives to be as an organization. These are aspirational goals that VA wants its employees, veterans, and the American people to associate with the Department and with its workforce. These Core characteristics describe the traits all VA organizations should possess and demonstrate, and they identify the qualities needed to successfully accomplish today's missions and also support the ongoing transformation to a 21st Century VA. These characteristics are: ( a ) *Trustworthy.* VA earns the trust of those it serves, every day, through the actions of its employees. They provide care, benefits, and services with compassion, dependability, effectiveness, and transparency.
( b ) *Accessible.* VA engages and welcomes veterans and other beneficiaries, facilitating their use of the entire array of its services. Each interaction will be positive and productive.
( c ) *Quality.* VA provides the highest standard of care and services to veterans and beneficiaries while managing the cost of its programs and being efficient stewards of all resources entrusted to it by the American people. VA is a model of unrivalled excellence due to employees who are empowered, trusted by their leaders, and respected for their competence and dedication.
( d ) *Innovative.* VA prizes curiosity and initiative, encourages creative contributions from all employees, seeks continuous improvement, and adapts to remain at the forefront in knowledge, proficiency, and capability to deliver the highest standard of care and services to all of the people it serves.
( e ) *Agile.* VA anticipates and adapts quickly to current challenges and new requirements by continuously assessing the environment in which it operates and devising solutions to better serve veterans, other beneficiaries, and Service members.
( f ) *Integrated.* VA links care and services across the Department; other federal, state, and local agencies; partners; and Veterans Services Organizations to provide useful and understandable programs to veterans and other beneficiaries. VA's relationship with the Department of Defense is unique, and VA will nurture it for the benefit of veterans and Service members.
----

|  | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2020 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of              the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Joshua B. Lynn            |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   | Joshua B. Lynn                |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer       |   |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

----
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4804 Partial claim payment as a home retention option. ( a ) The Veterans Assistance Partial Claim Payment program is designed to address the financial hardships due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 national emergency. A servicer may therefore use the partial claim payment option, even in cases where other home retention options are feasible, provided the partial claim payment option is in the veteran's financial interest.
( b ) If the veteran notifies the servicer that the veteran does not want to retain ownership of the property securing the guaranteed loan, the servicer may immediately proceed to offering an alternative to foreclosure.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3703(c), 3720, 3732)
§ 42.5 Review by the reviewing official. ( a ) The report of the investigating official will be examined by the reviewing official to determine if there is adequate evidence to believe a person is liable under § 42.3 of this part. The review will be completed within 90 days.
( b ) If, based on the report of the investigating official under § 42.4(b) of this part, the reviewing official determines that there is adequate evidence to believe that a person is liable under § 42.3 of this part, the reviewing official shall transmit to the Attorney General a written notice of the reviewing official's intention to issue a complaint under § 42.7 of this part.
( c ) The notice shall include— ( 1 ) A statement of the reviewing official's reasons for issuing a complaint;
( 2 ) A statement specifying the evidence that supports the allegations of liability;
( 3 ) A description of the claims or statements upon which the allegations of liability are based;
( 4 ) An estimate of the amount of money or the value of property, services, or other benefits requested or demanded in violation of § 42.3 of this part;
( 5 ) A statement of any exculpatory or mitigating circumstances that may relate to the claims or statements known by the reviewing official or the investigating official; and
( 6 ) A statement that there is a reasonable prospect of collecting an appropriate amount of penalties and assessments.
( d ) If the reviewing official finds that there is not adequate evidence that a person is liable, the reviewing official will inform the department or office of the Department of Veterans Affairs concerned with the claim or statement and the investigating official.
Order entered April 10, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00066-CR

CRAIG DICKEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F06-99720-L

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On March 4, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the clerk’s 

and reporter’s records had not been filed. On March 21, 2014, we received the clerk’s record 

and on April 4, 2014, we received the reporter’s record. Therefore, in the interest of expediting 

the appeal, we VACATE the March 4, 2014 order requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE