alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael ZEMONICK, et al., Appellants, v. CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 84-1353.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Feb. 3, 1986.

Decided July 28, 1986.

Robert M. Bastress (Barbara J. Fleischauer, West Virginia University College of Law, Morgantown, W. Va., on brief), for appellants.

Robert M. Steptoe, Jr. (C. David Morrison, Steptoe & Johnson), Clarksburg, W. Va., for appellee Consolidation Coal Co.

(Michael J. Aloi, Manchin, Aloi & Carrick, Fairmont, W. Va., on brief), for appellee Dist. 31, United Mine Workers of America.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE, ERVIN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge.*

*

 Chief Judge WINTER and Judge Wilkinson did not participate.

PER CURIAM:

The district court dismissed these hybrid § 301/DFR claims as barred by the six months limitation period established by the Supreme Court of the United States in *DelCostello v. Teamsters,*462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). The plaintiffs appealed to this court, and the majority of the three judge panel hearing the appeal reversed the district court, holding that *DelCostello*should not have been given retroactive effect in this case, and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. *Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co.,*762 F.2d 381 (4th Cir.1985). One member of the panel dissented, expressing the views (1) that the Supreme Court in *DelCostello*had already resolved the issue of retroactivity against the plaintiffs and (2) that even if it is appropriate to conduct an independent analysis of retroactivity under *Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson,*404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), the *Chevron*factors require that *DelCostello*be given retroactive rather than prospective application to these facts.

*1547A majority of the active judges of this court subsequently voted to give *en banc*consideration to the issues raised by this appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, it was held that the district court did not err when it applied *DelCostello*retroactively in this case and that the decision of the court should be affirmed. Since the rationale for the *en banc*court’s decision is adequately reflected in the dissenting opinion in *Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co.,*762 F.2d 381, 389-397 (4th Cir.1985), no useful purpose would be served by repeating it here.

AFFIRMED.

HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge, with whom Judge DONALD RUSSELL and Judge K.K. HALL

join, dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons set forth in the majority panel opinion in *Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co.,*762 F.2d 381, 382-89 (4th Cir.1985).
1

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 94-40933

Summary Calendar.

Alfredo HERNANDEZ-RAMOS, Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

April 11, 1995.

Petition for Review of Transfer Treaty Determination of the United

States Parole Commission.

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

ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:

Court-appointed counsel for Alfredo Hernandez-Ramos

(Hernandez) has filed a brief of the sort contemplated by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967),

averring that there are no nonfrivolous issues to assert on appeal,

and moving the Court for permission to withdraw as Hernandez's

counsel. Although Anders was a direct appeal from a criminal

conviction, this Court has utilized the Anders format in a habeas

corpus case. See, Dinkins v. Alabama, 526 F.2d 1268, 1269 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 842, 97 S.Ct. 119, 50 L.Ed.2d 112

(1972). We likewise find that it is appropriate to apply the

principles enunciated in Anders to determine whether counsel should

be allowed to withdraw in a petition for review of Transfer Treaty

Determination of the United States Parole Commission.

 Under Anders, a court-appointed attorney may withdraw if he

makes a conscientious examination of the case and finds the appeal
2

wholly frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. To

comply with Anders, counsel must isolate "possibly important

issues" and "furnish the court with references to the record and

legal authorities to aid it in its appellate function." United

States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328, 1329 (5th Cir.1976). After the

appellant is given an opportunity to respond, the court makes a

full examination of the record to determine whether the case is

frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400.

Counsel here has fully complied with the Anders requirements.

Hernandez, although given the opportunity, did not file a response.

We have independently reviewed the brief and record and found no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, it is ordered that counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the Petition for

Review of Transfer Treaty Determination is DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 190 (Friday, October 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Availability for Non-Exclusive, Exclusive, or Partially Exclusive 
Licensing of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Concerning Monoclonal 
Antibodies Against Glycoprotein of Ebola Sudan Boniface Virus

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the 
invention set forth in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 
61/239,266 entitled ``Monoclonal Antibodies Against Glycoprotein of 
Ebola Sudan Boniface Virus,'' filed September 2, 2009. The United 
States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has 
rights to this invention.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth 
Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul 
Mele, Office of Research and Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, 
both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention relates generally to the field 
of antibodies. More specifically the invention relates to monoclonal 
antibodies against glycoproteins of the Ebola Sudan Boniface virus and 
methods of producing and using the same.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-23769 Filed 10-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
EX-4.36



 Exhibit 4.36 

Summary in English of the GSF Share Purchase Agreement 

The following are the main terms and conditions of the share purchase agreement entered into by Banco Invex, S.A., Institución de Banca Múltiple,
Invex Grupo Financiero, as trustee of Trust F/1017 (the “Trustee”), Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. de C.V. (“GST”), with the acknowledgement of GSF Telecom Holdings, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“GSF”) and
Corporativo Vasco de Quiroga, S.A. de C.V. (“CVQ”). 
  

			
	PARTIES		 Seller: The Trustee
 Buyer: GST

 
 With the acknowledgement of GSF and CVQ.

		
	DATE		July 9, 2014
		
	PURCHASED SHARES		Subject to the compliance of certain conditions (which occurred on January 6, 2015), GST acquired from the Seller 49,999 series “B” shares and 149,500,000 series “BB” shares, representative of the capital stock
of GSF.
		
	PRICE		US$717,000,000.001
		
	JURISDICTION		Mexican federal courts sitting in Mexico City.
		
	GOVERNING LAW		The parties submitted to the applicable federal laws of Mexico.

  

	1 	This purchase price includes (i) US$122,163,310.22 that had been previously contributed to GSF by CVQ for future capital increases prior to the transaction, which CVQ was subsequently reimbursed to CVQ as part of
the transaction, and (ii) US$3.97 that were received by CVQ for the sale of the one share of GSF that was held outside of Trust F/1017.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inrob Tech Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 10Q-SB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Ben-Tsur
Joseph, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

______/s/______________
Ben-Tsur Joseph, Chief Executive/Financial Officer
November 21, 2005
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 570/2005

of 14 April 2005         

amending Regulation (EC) No 118/2005 as regards the fixing of budgetary ceilings for direct payments to be granted under Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (1), and in particular Article 71(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 118/2005 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 April 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2005 (OJ L 24, 27.1.2005, p. 15).

----

ANNEX

                     ‘ANNEX IV

BUDGETARY CEILINGS FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS TO BE GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 71 OF REGULATION (EC) No 1782/2003

Calendar year 2005

----

(*1)  Aids corresponding to premiums paid in animal sectors during the reference years 2000-2002 in the outermost regions have been deducted.’         

----
1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3210

___________

William Calhoun, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Wal-Mart, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 31, 2009

Filed: August 5, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Calhoun appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing his employmentdiscrimination suit, in part because he failed to disclose the action in bankruptcy

filings. Following careful review, we find no abuse of discretion in the application

of judicial estoppel to Calhoun’s claim. See Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d

1041, 1046 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). We decline Calhoun’s request to

modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, given that a without-prejudice dismissal
-2-

would serve no purpose because Calhoun is estopped from pursuing his action in the

future. See Paulucci v. City of Duluth, 826 F.2d 780, 782-83 (8th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
# Family Day, 2009

Our family provides one of the strongest influences on our lives. American families from every walk of life have taught us time and again that children raised in loving, caring homes have the ability to reject negative behaviors and reach their highest potential. Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things. Today, our children are confronting issues of drug and alcohol use with astonishing regularity. On Family Day, we honor the dedication of parents, commend the achievements of their children, and celebrate the contributions our Nation's families have made to combat substance abuse among young people.

The 21st century presents families with unprecedented challenges. Millions of women and men are struggling to balance the demands of their jobs with the needs of their families. At the same time, our youngest generation faces countless distractions in their social environment. They are coming of age in a world where electronic devices have replaced the playground, televisions have preempted conversation, and pressure to use drug and alcohol is far too prevalent. Parents bear significant stress and burdens to protect their children from harmful influences.

It is our responsibility to talk with adolescents about the risks of abusing alcohol, tobacco, or prescription and illicit drugs, and other harmful behaviors. These substances can destroy the mind, body, and spirit of a child, jeopardizing their health and limiting their potential. Active parents, voicing their disapproval of drug use, have proven themselves to be the most effective preventative method for keeping our children drug-free. A strong and engaged family can make all the difference in helping young people make healthy decisions.

By coming together as a family and discussing the events of the day, parents can foster open communication, share joys and concerns, and help guide their children toward healthy decisionmaking. A strong nation is made up of strong families, and on this Family Day, we rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every American family has the chance to build a better, healthier future for themselves and their children.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 28, 2009, as Family Day. I call upon the people of the United States to join together in observing this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities to honor and strengthen our Nation's families.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

[FR Doc. E9-23773

Billing code 3195-W9-P
#### § 4.113 Coexisting abdominal conditions.

There are diseases of the digestive system, particularly within the abdomen, which, while differing in the site of pathology, produce a common disability picture characterized in the main by varying degrees of abdominal distress or pain, anemia and disturbances in nutrition. Consequently, certain coexisting diseases in this area, as indicated in the instruction under the title “Diseases of the Digestive System,” do not lend themselves to distinct and separate disability evaluations without violating the fundamental principle relating to pyramiding as outlined in § 4.14.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

D.T., III, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3744 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 1, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michael J. Scionti, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lara E. Breslow, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, BADALAMENTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### §§ 3.258-3.259 [Reserved]
42078.

#### MILLER v. THE STATE.

Deen, Judge.

1. “Where the evidence shows that intoxicating liquor was found in the place of business of one charged with possession of such liquor, an inference arises that said liquor was in the defendant's possession. Such inference is not conclusive, but may be rebutted by showing that such liquor was not the defendant’s property and was not there with his knowledge and consent.” *Kent v. State,*105 Ga. App. 312 (1) (124 SE2d 296). This is not a presumption of law but an inference arising from a given state of facts, and may apply to one in charge of an establishment as its proprietor although he is not in fact the owner. See *Miller v. State,*94 Ga. App. 259 (94 SE2d 120). The inference will not arise where it appears that the liquor is found in a location equally accessible to the defendant and others not members of his immediate family and where there is no direct evidence connecting the defendant with the illegal possession to the exclusion of such others. *Harper v. State,*85 Ga. App. 252 (1) (69 SE2d 102); *Luncejord v. Mayor &c. of Washington,*17 Ga. App. 730 (2) *58(88 SE 212); *Rhoddenberry v. State,*50 Ga. App. 378 (178 SE 170).

Submitted June 8, 1966

Decided June 22, 1966

Rehearing denied July 8, 1966.

*Stafford B. Brooke,*for appellant.

*B. L. Vining, Jr., Solicitor General,*for appellee.

2. Under a search warrant naming particularly the store of E. D. Ridley as the place to be searched for nontax-paid liquor, officers entering the grocery found the defendant, who stated that he was running the place for Mr. Ridley, and one customer. Twelve to sixteen pints and half pints of tax-paid liquor were found under some rags in a box which had been shoved behind or under a counter-top Coca-Cola box. An additional seven to ten cases of bonded whiskey were located in a closet in the living quarters section of the building. There was evidence that the defendant was seen almost daily working at the grocery store, but no evidence that the owner or any other person worked at the store and no evidence as to who had access to the living quarters. The defendant introduced no evidence and made no statement. The liquor was not located in a place accessible to customers. So far as appears from the scanty evidence introduced, none of which was denied' by the defendant, he was the only person “running” the business of the store. Indubitably, the verdict of guilty of possessing an illegal amount of tax-paid liquor was not unauthorized for any reason assigned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
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.

§ 36.4513 Foreclosure and liquidation. In the event of a foreclosure sale or other liquidation of the security for a loan, the Department of Veterans Affairs shall credit upon the indebtedness the greater of: ( a ) The net proceeds of the sale, or
( b ) The current market value of the property as determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs, less the costs and expenses of liquidation.
In no event shall the credit pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section exceed the amount of the gross indebtedness, nor shall such credit be less than the amount legally required to be credited to the indebtedness under local law. If a deed in lieu of foreclosure is accepted, the consideration will be a full and complete release of liability of the obligors, or such lesser amount as may be agreed upon between the obligors and the Department of Veterans Affairs. [23 FR 2340, Apr. 10, 1958]
EDWARD D. BUNN , Appellant /Cross

- Appellee ,

v.
HELEN D. KARSH , Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
C ASE NO S

. 1D 1 4

- 1677 & 1D14

- 2361

_____________________________/ Opinion filed January 5, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Toby S. Monaco , Judge

. Robert Bunn , Gainesville , for Appellant /Cross

- Appellee

. J ames H. Wyman of Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Coral Gables , for Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

.

PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. BENTON, O STERHAUS , and BILBREY , JJ ., CONCUR.
§ 80.11 Payments under the grant. ( a ) *Payments.* Grantees are to be paid in accordance with the timeframes and manner set forth in the NOFO.
( b ) *Availability of grant funds.* Federal financial assistance will become available subsequent to the effective date of the grant as set forth in the grant agreement. Recipients will not be reimbursed for costs resulting from obligations incurred before the effective date of the grant.
(Authority: Pub. L. 116-315, sec. 4304; 2 CFR 200.203)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> RMB
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   8.30
<CASH>                                          80,670
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  135,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    185,350
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               839,585
<PP&E>                                          26,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 874,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          570,356
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           641
<OTHER-SE>                                     206,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   874,591
<SALES>                                      1,282,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,297,877
<CGS>                                        1,165,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,206,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,912
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,738
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,738
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.978
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.908
        

</TABLE>