alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7359

ALBERTO BUSTILLO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus A. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-348) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 28, 2005 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alberto Bustillo, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Winslow Reed, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alberto Bustillo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bustillo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
DIRECTORS’ LIABILITY.

[Lucas Circuit Court,

January Term, 1893.]

Bentley, Haynes and Scribner, JJ.

#### Fanny B. Bond v. Isaac N. Poe et al.

Not Personally Liable to Stockholders for Losses.

The directors of a corporation organized to manufacture woodenware will not be held liable personally for losses sustained by the addition of the manufacture of sewing machines if they acted in good faith and the stockholders for years knew and acquiesced therein.

Appeal from Lucas Common Pleas.

'Haynes, J.

The plaintiff brings this suit in behalf of herself and other stockholders of the Union Manufacturing Co., which is insolvent and its affairs being wound up and its stockholders assessed to pay its debts in other actions. The present action is against the president and directors of that corporation to recover damages for .alleged negligence and mismanagement by the officers and directors, of its affairs and business whereby it is alleged its stock was rendered worthless, its business ruined, its assets wasted and its stockholders assessed large amounts for the payment of its debts.

The main questions arising upon the issues of fact, were referred to a jury in the court of common pleas, which jury found in favor of the defendants, and judgment being thereinafter rendered by the court of common pleas for the defendants, the case was appealed to the circuit court and tried upon substantially the same evidence. The circuit court finding that the immense losses of the •corporation were due mainly to the fact that the company had added to its original woodenware manufacturing, the manufacture and sale of sewing machines on a large scale, which business was in its nature and in the usual manner of carrying it on, one that required a large outlay and attended with great risks, and that the •stockholders were for years well aware that the company was engaged in said business and acquiesed therein, and that the errors in its management were those of judgment and were committed while the defendants were acting in good faith and therein risking large sums of money of their own advanced to the corporation, and that they had not been guilty of such wrongful or negligent actions as -to warrant their being held liable m damages personally, entered a decree in avor oi the defendants.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06767**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 06767\06767_ Certification Statement.PDF Plant certification statement 

### 06767\06767_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 06767\06767_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06767\06767_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 06767\06767_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06767\06767_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06767\06767_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06767\06767_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06767\06767_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06767\Supporting Documents\06767_2010 Nixon Water Balance - ICR.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 06767\Supporting Documents\06767_Bottom Ash Drag Chain System Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06767\Supporting Documents\06767_Prt D WWT-1 Zero Discharge Plant Flow Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06767\Supporting Documents\06767_Ray D Nixon Part A5-2 Site Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### COLLMAN V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 17, 1913.)

Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. B. M. Miller.

A. D. Pitts, and Reese & Reese, for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Walker, P. J. —

There is no error. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2970 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2970

 To authorize the disinterment from the Lorraine American Cemetery in 
  St. Avold, France, of the remains of Private First Class Alfred J. 
   Laitres, of Island Pond, Vermont, who died in combat in France on 
December 25, 1944, and to authorize the transfer of his remains to the 
                      custody of his next of kin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2003

 Mr. Sanders introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the disinterment from the Lorraine American Cemetery in 
  St. Avold, France, of the remains of Private First Class Alfred J. 
   Laitres, of Island Pond, Vermont, who died in combat in France on 
December 25, 1944, and to authorize the transfer of his remains to the 
                      custody of his next of kin.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF DISINTERMENT AND TRANSFER OF CUSTODY.

    (a) Disinterment.--The Secretary of the Army and the American 
Battle Monuments Commission shall take such steps as are necessary to 
authorize the next of kin of the late Alfred J. Laitres, of Island 
Pond, Vermont, to disinter from the Lorraine American Cemetery in St. 
Avold, France, the remains of Mr. Laitres, who died in combat in France 
on December 25, 1944, while a Private First Class in the United States 
Army.
    (b) Transfer of Custody.--The Secretary of the Army and the 
American Battle Monuments Commission shall take such steps as are 
necessary to authorize the transfer of the remains of Mr. Laitres to 
the custody of his next of kin.

SEC. 2. AGENT DESIGNATED BY NEXT OF KIN.

    The next of kin of Alfred J. Laitres is authorized to designate an 
agent to act on his or her behalf pursuant to section 1.

SEC. 3. NO EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

    No federal funds may be expended for the disinterment and transfer 
of custody authorized in section 1.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2011169EN.01001101.xml

| 9.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 169/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 169/11

---

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement

2011/C 169/06

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

Date of adoption of the decision:

Case number: 68835

Decision Number: 44/11/COL

EFTA State: Liechtenstein

Title: Private Investment Structures

Legal basis: A new Liechtenstein Tax Act of 23 September 2010 entitled ‘Gesetz über die Landes- und Gemeindesteuern’

Type of measure: Under the new Tax Act legal persons may be granted the tax status, entitled Private Investment Structure (P.I.S) if they do not engage in economic activity. Entities with P.I.S status may acquire, hold, administer and sell assets only.

Objective: To grant entities which do not engage in economic activity a specific tax status.

Form of aid: The P.I.S status does not involve State aid.

Name and address of the granting authority: Not relevant

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from the
March  31,  1999  financial  statements  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                           0000795445
<NAME>                 ADVANCED MACHINE VISION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               3,057
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          7,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    16,259
<PP&E>                                               7,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                       2,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      28,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                4,047
<BONDS>                                              6,324
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          2,579
<COMMON>                                            26,103
<OTHER-SE>                                         (10,638)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        28,415
<SALES>                                              5,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     5,158
<CGS>                                                2,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        5,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (24)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (576)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (576)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.05)
        

</TABLE>
§ 1270.2 Authorized liabilities. As a source of funds for business operations, each Bank is authorized to incur liabilities by: ( a ) Accepting proceeds from the issuance of consolidated obligations issued in accordance with this part;
( b ) Accepting time or demand deposits from members, other Banks or instrumentalities of the United States, and cash accounts from associates or members pursuant to §§ 1266.17(b)(2)(i)(B), 1266.17(d) and 1269.4(a)(1) of this chapter, or § 1270.3 of this part, or from other institutions for which the Bank is providing correspondent services pursuant to section 11(e) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1431(e));
( c ) Purchasing Federal funds; and
( d ) Entering into repurchase agreements.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 76122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31278]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in the membership of the Senior 
Executive Service Performance Review Board for the Chemical Safety and 
Hazard Investigation Board (CSB).

DATES: Effective December 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lau, Human Resources Director, 
(202) 261-7600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) requires each agency to 
establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of 
Personnel Management, a performance review board (PRB). The PRB reviews 
initial performance ratings of members of the Senior Executive Service 
(SES) and makes recommendations as to final annual performance ratings 
for senior executives. Because the CSB is a small independent Federal 
agency, the SES members of the CSB's PRB are drawn from other Federal 
agencies.
    The Chairperson of the CSB has appointed the following individual 
to the CSB Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board:
    PRB Members--Ruth Samardick, Senior Policy Advisor, Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Review Commission; Fran Leonard, Chief of Staff, 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and; Nadine Mancini, General 
Counsel, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
    Mary Johnson (General Counsel, National Mediation Board) continues 
to serve as a Member of the PRB, as announced in the Federal Register 
of May 26, 2011 (76 FR 30646).
    This notice is published in the Federal Register pursuant to the 
requirement of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

    Dated: December 1, 2011.
Rafael Moure-Eraso,
Chairperson.
[FR Doc. 2011-31278 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
```
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

209) IV-E-83 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:58 PM Sheet 209 of 242 
P.2 

15SBJ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

DEC f 5 1988 OFFICE OF 

AIR ANO RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

FROM: Don R. Clay, 

Acting Assistant Admini 

for Air and Radiation 

TO: Docket A-87-11 

m Y,-U  -

3 hc 

On December 8, 1988 representatives from General Motors 

Corporation met with EPA Administrator Lee Thomas to discuss 

EPA's ongoing rulemaking to control refueling emissions from 

motor vehicles. 

Mr. Robert Stempel and Mr. Jim Johnson attended from 

General Motors and Mr. Thomas, Mr. Clay and Ms. LaRock 

represented EPA at the meeting.
#### § 303.202 Processing.

The FDIC will provide the applicant with a subsequent written notification of the final action taken as soon as the decision is rendered.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1148 KA 09-01977**  PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

JERRY K. SCROGER, ALSO KNOWN AS JERRY SCROGER, JR., ALSO KNOWN AS JERRY K. SCROGER, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GARY A. HORTON, PUBLIC DEFENDER, BATAVIA (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Robert C. Noonan, A.J.), rendered September 3, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### § 34.84 [Reserved]
#### FIRST NATIONAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JAMES ANNETT, DEFENDANT, AND CALVIN R. ANNETT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October 27, 1939

Decided January 25, 1940.

For the plaintiff respondent, *Samuel Tartalsky*and *Edward Zubalsky.*

For the defendant-appellant, *Samuel J. Davidson.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Perskie in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*—The Chief Justice, Bodine, Heher, Porter, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Hague, JJ. 8.

*For reversal*—The Chancellor, Case, Donges. Hetfield, Rafferty, JJ. 5.
#### Isaac Weiss, Appellant, *v.*Louis E. Wolff, Respondent.

'Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, second district, borough of Manhattan.

S. Eleischman, for appellant.

A. Solomon, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The overwhelming weight of evidence is in favor of the plaintiff’s contention that the payments made on and after April third, were made on account of the indebtedness of Theresa Wolff and the Enterprise Company, and not on account of the indebtedness of the defendant Louis E. Wolff. In fact there is no competent evidence that Theresa Wolff ever assumed the indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiff, while the evidence shows that she was indebted on her own account to the defendant.

*771Judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the, appellant to abide the event.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
§ 1808.308 Relending Fund; Relending Account. ( a ) *General.* As Bond Loans are repaid, such amounts in excess of those required for debt service payments on the Bonds may be held in the Relending Account and used for additional Secondary Loans, to the extent authorized in this section.
( b ) *Application of funds to Secondary Loans.* Amounts on deposit in the Relending Account shall be applied by the Eligible CDFI to make additional Secondary Loans, the term of which shall not exceed the maturity of the Bond.
( c ) *Requirements of Secondary Loans from Relending Account.* Secondary Loans made from the Relending Account shall meet all the requirements of the Secondary Loan Requirements, and conform to the following additional conditions: ( 1 ) The Qualified Issuer has received and approved a Bond Loan commitment request submitted by the Eligible CDFI;
( 2 ) No material event has occurred and is continuing or is threatened at the Eligible CDFI level or Qualified Issuer level that adversely affects the Eligible CDFI, the Bond or the Bond Loan;
( 3 ) No Eligible CDFI event of default has occurred and is continuing with respect to the Bond Loan;
( 4 ) No Qualified Issuer event of default has occurred and is continuing with respect to the Bond;
( 5 ) There exists no unreplenished draw on the Risk-Share Pool Fund by the Eligible CDFI;
( 6 ) The maturity of Secondary Loans made from the Relending Fund shall not extend beyond the maturity date of the corresponding Bond; and
( 7 ) Any other conditions set forth in this interim rule, the applicable Notice of Guarantee Availability, the Secondary Loan Requirements or the Bond Loan documents.
( d ) *Relending Subaccounts.* The balance of each subaccount of the Relending Fund (each a Relending Subaccount) shall not equal more than 10 percent of the principal amount outstanding of the Bond Loan, minus the prorata share of the Risk-Share Pool, as of the Calculation Date (the Relending Subaccount Maximum).
( e ) *Notification Date.* For purposes of this section, Notification Date means the date on which the Master Servicer/Trustee notifies the Eligible CDFI that the balance in the applicable Relending Subaccount exceeds the applicable Relending Subaccount Maximum. Calculation Date means, following the Notification Date, the earlier of: ( 1 ) The date on which the balance in such Relending Subaccount becomes less than or equal to the applicable Relending Subaccount Maximum, or
( 2 ) Six months following the Notification Date.
( f ) *Mandatory redemption.* Any amounts retained in the Relending Subaccount that exceeds the Relending Subaccount Maximum by $100,000 or more as of the applicable Calculation Date shall be transferred to the Redemption Account of the Debt Service Fund (as defined in § 1808.606(f)) to effectuate a mandatory redemption of the corresponding Bond in accordance with the terms of the Bond Trust Indenture. The determination of the actual amount on deposit on any Calculation Date shall exclude amounts then obligated pursuant to any executed promissory notes, whether then disbursed or undisbursed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.70


                        EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

     WHEREAS, Incara Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the "Company") and W. Bennett
Love (the "Employee") entered into an Employment Agreement dated November 16,
1998 (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for the renewal of the Agreement for one
year periods by mutual written agreement;

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee wish to amend the Agreement;

     NOW THEREFORE, effective as of May 1, 2001, the parties agree to extend the
term of the Agreement under the same terms and conditions for a one year period
through April 30, 2002. The remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
May 1, 2001.


INCARA PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION


By: /s/ Clayton I. Duncan                              /s/ W. Bennett Love
    ---------------------------------------            -------------------
Name: Clayton I. Duncan                                W. BENNETT LOVE
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer