alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6925

ALFRED MILTON RIVERA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus T. O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-00211-JAB) Submitted: October 4, 2006 Decided: October 17, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Milton Rivera, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alfred Milton Rivera seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rivera has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Rivera’s motion to substitute party, 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
Exhibit 10.3

THIS FIRST ADDENDUM AGREEMENT is made as of the 30th day of December 2002



BETWEEN:

                  BARRINGTON SCIENCES INTERNATIONALCORPORATION, a corporation
                  incorporated under the federal laws of Canada and having its
                  registered and records office at Suite 1260, 1188 West Georgia
                  Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V4A 6E2

                  (the "Vendor")

AND:

                  Financial Express Corporation, a corporation incorporated
                  under the laws of the State of Nevada, United States of
                  America

                  (the "Purchaser")

WHEREAS:

A. The parties have entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (the "Asset
Purchase Agreement") relating to the purchase by the Purchaser of the property
and assets of the Vendor's Business (as defined in the Asset Purchase
Agreement); and

B. The parties now wish to enter into this Addendum for the purpose of making
certain revisions to the Asset Purchase Agreement as hereinafter provided;

   NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that, in consideration of the
covenants, agreements, representations, warranties and payments hereinafter set
forth and provided for, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows:

1. AMENDMENTS

1.1 Revision of Purchase Price and Purchaser's Consideration. The Asset Purchase
Agreement is amended by revising the aggregate consideration to be paid by the
Purchaser to the Vendor thereunder by adding, as additional consideration, the
issuance by the Purchaser of share purchase warrants entitling the holder to
purchase an aggregate of 396,416 common shares of the Purchaser, and
specifically Part 3 thereof ("Purchase Price") is hereby amended by adding to
the Purchaser's Consideration (as defined in the Asset Purchase Agreement) the
following:

         "an aggregate of 396,416 share purchase warrants, which shall be
         assignable at the option of the Vendor, each of which shall entitle the
         holder to purchase one common share of the Purchaser at a price of CDN
         $0.75 at any time prior to October 31, 2004",

and all references in the Asset Purchase Agreement to the Purchaser's
Consideration shall include such warrants.

<PAGE>


1.2 Counterpart and Facsimile Execution. This amendment may be executed in
counterparts and by facsimile, and such counterparts and facsimile copies
together shall constitute a single agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement.


BARRINGTON SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, by its duly authorized signatory:


----------------------------------
Signature

----------------------------------
Name and Title

Financial Express Corporation, by its duly authorized signatory:


----------------------------------
Signature

Frank Baldwin,
#### JONES v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 18, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. H. P. Heflin.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Brown, J.

No bill of exceptions, no error of record. Affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 37 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 46 

[Report No. 116–6] 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 8, 2019 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

MARCH 13, 2019 

Reported by Mr. HOEVEN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Klamath Tribe Judg5 ment Fund Repeal Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 46 RS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

2 Public Law 89–224 (commonly known as the ‘‘Klam3 ath Tribe Judgment Fund Act’’) (79 Stat. 897) is re4 pealed. 

5 SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS. 

6 Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89–224 

7 (79 Stat. 897) (as in effect on the day before the date 

8 of enactment of this Act) relating to the distribution or 

9 use of funds, as soon as practicable after the date of enact10 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall dis11 burse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, 

12 on or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appro13 priated or deposited into the trust accounts for remaining 

14 legal fees and administration and per capita trust ac15 counts, as identified by the Secretary of the Interior, 

16 under that Act (as in effect on the day before the date 

17 of enactment of this Act). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Calendar No. 37 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 46 

[Report No. 116–6] 

A BILL 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

MARCH 13, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
§ 417.13 Agreement with Federal launch range. Before conducting a licensed launch from a Federal launch range, a launch operator must— ( a ) Enter into an agreement with a Federal launch range to provide access to and use of U.S. Government property and services required to support a licensed launch from the facility and for public safety related operations and support. The agreement must be in effect for the conduct of any licensed launch; and
( b ) Comply with any requirements of the agreement with the Federal launch range that may affect public safety and safety of property during the conduct of a licensed launch, including flight safety procedures and requirements.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1209]



[[Page 3233]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

FRL-6526-4]


Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cashout Settlement; Globaltex, 
LLC, 
d/b/a Bates of Maine, Bates Mill Superfund Site, Lewiston, Maine

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Aency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement for recovery of past and projected future 
response costs concerning the Bates Mill Superfund Site in Lewiston, 
Maine with the following settling party: Globaltex, LLC, d/b/a Bates of 
Maine. The settlement requires the settling party to pay $10,000 to the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund plus an additional sum for interest on 
that amount calculated from April 29, 1999 through the date of payment. 
The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party 
pursuant to sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 
9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
document, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the 
settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
    The Agency's response to any comments received will be available 
for public inspection at One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02214-2023.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the Regional Hearing Clerk, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 
Suite 1100, Mailcode RAA, Boston, Massachusetts 02203 and should refer 
to: In re: Bates Mill Superfund Site, U.S. EPA Docket No. I-99-0044.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed settlement may 
be obtained from Kathleen Woodward, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region I, Office of Environmental Stewardship, One Congress 
Street, Suite 1100, Mailcode SES, Boston, MA 02114-2023.

    Dated: December 15, 1999.
Dennis Huebner,
Acting Director, Office of Site Remediation & Restoration.
[FR Doc. 00-1209 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
§ 36.301 Noise limits: Concorde. ( a ) *General.* For the Concorde airplane, compliance with this subpart must be shown with noise levels measured and evaluated as prescribed in Subpart B of this part, and demonstrated at the measuring points prescribed in appendix B of this part.
( b ) *Noise limits.* It must be shown, in accordance with the provisions of this part in effect on October 13, 1977, that the noise levels of the airplane are reduced to the lowest levels that are economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for the Concorde type design.
[Amdt. 36-10, 43 FR 28420, June 29, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 36-54, 67 FR 45212, July 8, 2002]
§ 91.1019 Conducting tests and inspections. ( a ) At any time or place, the Administrator may conduct an inspection or test, other than an en route inspection, to determine whether a program manager under this subpart is complying with title 49 of the United States Code, applicable regulations, and the program manager's management specifications.
( b ) The program manager must— ( 1 ) Make available to the Administrator at the program manager's principal base of operations, or at a place approved by the Administrator, the program manager's management specifications; and
( 2 ) Allow the Administrator to make any test or inspection, other than an en route inspection, to determine compliance respecting any matter stated in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Each employee of, or person used by, the program manager who is responsible for maintaining the program manager's records required by or necessary to demonstrate compliance with this subpart must make those records available to the Administrator.
( d ) The Administrator may determine a program manager's continued eligibility to hold its management specifications on any grounds listed in paragraph (a) of this section, or any other appropriate grounds.
( e ) Failure by any program manager to make available to the Administrator upon request, the management specifications, or any required record, document, or report is grounds for suspension of all or any part of the program manager's management specifications.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00339-CV

__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.G., C.G., A.G., AND J.G.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-03-02206-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A.G., appellant, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. SeeTex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant filed the motion before the appellate court issued a 

decision in the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. SeeTex. R. App. 

P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMSSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 19, 2022

Opinion Delivered January 20, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Prince of Wales outfitter andguide management plan: decision notice ; Tongass National Forest, Craig andThorne Bay Ranger Districts, Craig and Thorne Bay, Alaska.**
 
Decision Notice
Appendices:One | Two| Three
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.105/2:R 10-MB-743B
Item Number:0082-A-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000901638
 
January 17, 2018
§ 91.1047 Drug and alcohol misuse education program. ( a ) Each program manager must provide each direct employee performing flight crewmember, flight attendant, flight instructor, or aircraft maintenance duties with drug and alcohol misuse education.
( b ) No program manager may use any contract employee to perform flight crewmember, flight attendant, flight instructor, or aircraft maintenance duties for the program manager unless that contract employee has been provided with drug and alcohol misuse education.
( c ) Program managers must disclose to their owners and prospective owners the existence of a company drug and alcohol misuse testing program. If the program manager has implemented a company testing program, the program manager's disclosure must include the following: ( 1 ) Information on the substances that they test for, for example, alcohol and a list of the drugs;
( 2 ) The categories of employees tested, the types of tests, for example, pre-employment, random, reasonable cause/suspicion, post accident, return to duty and follow-up; and
( 3 ) The degree to which the program manager's company testing program is comparable to the federally mandated drug and alcohol testing program required under part 120 of this chapter regarding the information in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
( d ) If a program aircraft is operated on a program flight into an airport at which no maintenance personnel are available that are subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section and emergency maintenance is required, the program manager may use persons not meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section to provide such emergency maintenance under both of the following conditions: ( 1 ) The program manager must notify the Drug Abatement Program Division, AAM-800, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 in writing within 10 days after being provided emergency maintenance in accordance with this paragraph. The program manager must retain copies of all such written notifications for two years.
( 2 ) The aircraft must be reinspected by maintenance personnel who meet the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section when the aircraft is next at an airport where such maintenance personnel are available.
( e ) For purposes of this section, emergency maintenance means maintenance that— ( 1 ) Is not scheduled, and
( 2 ) Is made necessary by an aircraft condition not discovered prior to the departure for that location.
( f ) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, drug and alcohol misuse education conducted under an FAA-approved drug and alcohol misuse prevention program may be used to satisfy these requirements.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-10047, 68 FR 54561, Sept. 17, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 91-307, 74 FR 22653, May 14, 2009]
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Lancer Acupuncture, P.C., a/a/o Aleksandr Muzis, Plaintiff-Appellant, -<br><br>against<br><br>Amica Mutual Ins. Co., Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff, as limited by its brief, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered April 16, 2015, which, upon reargument, adhered to its prior order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered April 16, 2015, modified by reinstating plaintiff's claim for first-party no-fault benefits billed under CPT code 99302; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>Defendant's documentary submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues as to whether it properly denied plaintiff's no-fault claim for $54.74, billed under CPT code 99203 (initial evaluation), thus precluding summary judgment dismissing this claim (<a href="../2015/2015_51849.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 Misc 3d 127</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51849[U][App Term, 1st Dept. 2015]).</p><p>In the absence of any prejudice, Civil Court properly exercised its discretion under CPLR 2001, to allow defendant to correct the defect in form of the IME report of its acupuncturist/chiropractor.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 13, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


          WHEREAS, the undersigned officers and directors of ITXC Corp. ("ITXC")
desire to authorize Tom Evslin,  John G. Musci and Edward B. Jordan to act as
their attorneys-in-fact and agents, for the purpose of executing and filing the
annual report described below, including all amendments and supplements thereto,

          NOW, THEREFORE,

          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Tom Evslin,  John G. Musci and Edward B.
Jordan , and each of them, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with
full power of substitution and re-substitution, to sign the registrant's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, including any and all
amendments and supplements to such Annual report, and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, or any of them, or their or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this power of
attorney in the following capacities as of the 28th day of March, 2000.


Signature                                     Title
---------                                     -----

/s/ Tom Evslin
                                              Chairman, President and
-------------------------------------         Chief Executive Officer
Tom Evslin

/s/ John G. Musci
                                              Director
-------------------------------------
John G. Musci

/s/ Edward B. Jordan
                                              Chief Financial and Accounting
-------------------------------------         Officer and Director
Edward B. Jordan

/s/ William P. Collatos
                                              Director
-------------------------------------
William P. Collatos

                                              Director
-------------------------------------
Elon A. Ganor

/s/ Frederick R. Wilson
                                              Director
-------------------------------------
Frederick R. Wilson

                                      -2-