alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1988.106 Objections to the findings and the preliminary order and requests for a hearing. ( a ) Any party who desires review, including judicial review, of the findings and/or preliminary order, or a respondent alleging that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith who seeks an award of attorney fees under MAP-21, must file any objections and/or a request for a hearing on the record within 30 days of receipt of the findings and preliminary order pursuant to § 1988.105. The objections, request for a hearing, and/or request for attorney fees must be in writing and state whether the objections are to the findings, the preliminary order, and/or whether there should be an award of attorney fees. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic transmittal is considered the date of filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. Objections must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, in accordance with 29 CFR part 18, and copies of the objections must be served at the same time on the other parties of record, the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
( b ) If a timely objection is filed, all provisions of the preliminary order will be stayed, except for the portion requiring preliminary reinstatement, which will not be automatically stayed. The portion of the preliminary order requiring reinstatement will be effective immediately upon the respondent's receipt of the findings and preliminary order, regardless of any objections to the order. The respondent may file a motion with the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a stay of the Assistant Secretary's preliminary order of reinstatement, which shall be granted only based on exceptional circumstances. If no timely objection is filed with respect to either the findings or the preliminary order, the findings and/or the preliminary order will become the final decision of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review.
[81 FR 13984, Mar. 16, 2016, as amended at 86 FR 1794, Jan. 11, 2021]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-30490

_____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

DON LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CR-168-T-2)

______________________________________________________ April 13, 1998 Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * In this direct criminal appeal, Lewis raises three issues: 1. Whether the district court erred in denying Lewis’s motion to suppress evidence; 2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in qualifying Henry Richardson as an expert in identifying drug ledgers; 3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Lewis’s conviction for conspiracy.2

After hearing oral argument and reviewing t he briefs of the parties and pertinent portions of the record, we are satisfied that the district court committed no reversible error.
AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. AC11-121-000]

Liberty Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 25, 2011, Liberty Gas Storage, LLC 
(Liberty) submitted a request for confirmation that it is not required 
to file FERC Form No. 2-A and will not be applicable until such time as 
the actual volume transactions on Liberty exceed 200,000 Dth for three 
consecutive calendar years. Liberty argues that given the low levels of 
total volume transactions on Liberty's pipeline system during the 
preceding three calendar years, Liberty does not meet the threshold for 
filing a Form 2-A. Liberty, in fact, has never met this threshold since 
it placed its initial facilities into service in 2007. Since the Form 
No. 3-Q filing requirement is applicable only when a natural gas 
company is obligated to file a Form 2-A, Liberty likewise believes that 
it is not required to file a Form No. 3-Q under present circumstances. 
Liberty requests the issuance of an order or other determination on 
this request for confirmation by September 1, 2011, which is the 
requested effective date for new, cost-based rates on Liberty's system.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: August 29, 2011.

    Dated: July 29, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20043 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2013

d1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

147259

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147259

COA: 308181

Wayne CC: 11-004668-FC

TERRENCE BANKS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRENDA MORRIS REEVES and RONALD REEVES,

Appellants,

v.

ROFEGO MOTORS, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1371

[December 21, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Frank S. Castor, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2022-SC002034-XXXX-MB.

Brenda M. Reeves, Vero Beach, pro se.

Alan L. Raines and Elizabeth Jimenez of Raines Legal, Boca Raton, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1150 (Fla. 1979).

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
(74 South. 843)

#### DALEY v. STATE.

(8 Div. 491.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 1917.)

Jury <&wkey;31(5) — Bight to Trial by Jury — Statute — Constitutionality.

Acts 1915, p. 940, requiring defendant indicted for misdemeanor to file with the clerk of the court a written demand for trial by jury, is not violative of Const. 1901, § 6, guaranteeing in all criminal prosecutions by indictment that accused shall have a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is committed, merely because it requires the demand to be in writing.

[Ed. Note. — For other cabes, see Jury, Cent. Dig. § 208.]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

John Daley was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

James C. Phelps and Milo Moody, both of Scottsboro, for appellant. W. D. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BBOWN, P. J.

The appellant contends that the act approved September 28, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 940), in so far as it requires tbe defendant indicted for a misdemeanor to file with the clerk of the court a written demand for trial by jury, is violative of section 6 of the Constitution of 1901, guaranteeing in all criminal prosecutions by indictment the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is committed, because it requires the demand to be made in writing. This contention is fully answered in tbe following cases: Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney General, 170 Ala. 178, 54 South. 213, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1093; Connelly v. State, 60 Ala. 89, 31 Am. Rep. 34; Ireland v. State, 11 Ala. App. 155, 65 South. 443; Frazier v. State, 11 Ala. App. 285, 66 South. 879.

There was evidence before the court authorizing the conclusion announced in the judgment of guilt, and a new trial was properly denied. Mulligan v. State, 15 Ala. App. 204, 72 South. 761.

Affirmed.
#### § 4061.1 Cross-references.

See part 4022 of this chapter regarding benefits payable under terminated single-employer plans and § 4281.47 of this chapter regarding financial assistance to pay benefits under insolvent multiemployer plans.
California Carbon Industry, Inc.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






CALIFORNIA CARBON INDUSTRY, INC. 
SUBSCRIPTION
AGREEMENT 


California Carbon Industry, Inc. 
222 Sepulveda Boulevard,
Suite 2000 
El Segundo CA 90245 


RE: California Carbon Industry, Inc.
Common Stock 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The undersigned investor in this Subscription Agreement hereby
acknowledges receipt of the Prospectus, dated __________________, 2015, of
California Carbon Industry, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), and
subscribes for the following number of shares upon the terms and conditions set
forth in the Prospectus. 

The Investor agrees that this Subscription Agreement is subject
to availability and acceptance by the Company. 

The Investor hereby subscribes for ____________ shares of the
Company’s common stock (“Common Stock”) at $0.05 per share, for an aggregate
purchase price of $____________. 

Payment of $____________ as payment in full of the purchase
price is being made via check directly to the Company.

If this subscription is rejected by the Company, in whole or in
part, for any reason, all funds will be returned within three business days of
the Company’s receipt of such funds, without interest or deduction of any kind.


	 
	Purchaser Information: 




	Printed Name: 	 
	 	 
	Signature: 	 
	 	 
	Date: 	 
	 	 
	Address: 	 
	 	 
	 	 



 

 





	 
	The foregoing Subscription is hereby accepted in full on
      behalf of California Carbon Industry, Inc. 


Date ___________________. 

CALIFORNIA CARBON INDUSTRY, INC. 


	By: 	 
    
	Name: 	Frederick Courouble 
	Title: 	President and Principal Executive Officer
§ 501.34 General. ( a ) Except as specifically provided in this part, the *Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges* established by the Secretary at 29 CFR part 18 shall apply to administrative proceedings described in this part.
( b ) As provided in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 556, any oral or documentary evidence may be received in proceedings under this part. The Federal Rules of Evidence and 29 CFR part 18, subpart B, will not apply, but principles designed to ensure production of relevant and probative evidence shall guide the admission of evidence. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitive.
#### § 780.621 No overtime wages in exempt week.

In a workweek in which all the requirements of the section 13(b)(13) exemption are met, the employee is exempt from the overtime requirements of section 7 for that entire workweek.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 299 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 299

 Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival 
                               of Diwali.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2007

   Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival 
                               of Diwali.

Whereas Diwali, a festival of great significance to Indian Americans and South 
        Asian Americans, is celebrated annually by Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains 
        throughout the United States;
Whereas there are nearly 2,000,000 Hindus in the United States, approximately 
        1,250,000 of which are of Indian and South Asian origin;
Whereas the word ``Diwali'' is a shortened version of the Sanskrit term 
        ``Deepavali'', which means ``a row of lamps'';
Whereas Diwali is a festival of lights, during which celebrants light small oil 
        lamps, place them around the home, and pray for health, knowledge, and 
        peace;
Whereas celebrants of Diwali believe that the rows of lamps symbolize the light 
        within the individual that rids the soul of the darkness of ignorance;
Whereas Diwali falls on the last day of the last month in the lunar calendar and 
        is celebrated as a day of thanksgiving and the beginning of the new year 
        for many Hindus;
Whereas for Hindus, Diwali is a celebration of the victory of good over evil;
Whereas for Sikhs, Diwali is feted as the day that the sixth founding Sikh Guru, 
        or revered teacher, Guru Hargobind, was released from captivity by the 
        Mughal Emperor Jehangir; and
Whereas for Jains, Diwali marks the anniversary of the attainment of moksha, or 
        liberation, by Mahavira, the last of the Tirthankaras (the great 
        teachers of Jain dharma), at the end of his life in 527 B.C.: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes the religious and historical significance of 
        the festival of Diwali; and
            (2) requests the President to issue a proclamation 
        recognizing Diwali.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ronald M. COLEMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. *21242.*

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 4, 1967.

Charles A. Collier, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief Crim. Div., Roger A. Browning, Michael D. Nasatir, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges; and SMITH,* District Judge.

*

 Russell E. Smith, United States District Judge, District of Montana, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659 — the stealing and taking of goods from interstate commerce with the intent to convert them to his own use. The issues of asportation, intent and sufficiency of the evidence were for the jury. The value of the goods and the fact of interstate commerce were stipulated to.

The jury adopted the prosecution’s view of the evidence, and convicted appellant. We affirm.
Exhibit 10.4.1


 


June 26, 2014


 


		Re:	PAXmed Inc.



 


Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to those certain warrants (“Warrants”)
to purchase shares of common stock, par value $0.001 (“Common Stock”), of PAXmed Inc. (“Company”) held
by the undersigned.


 


The Company hereby acknowledges and agrees that,
so long as the Warrants are held by the undersigned or its permitted transferees (as defined in the registration statement for
the Company’s initial public offering), the Company shall allow the undersigned to exercise the Warrants by surrendering
such Warrant for that number of shares of Common Stock equal to the quotient obtained by dividing (x) the product of the number
of shares of Common Stock underlying the Warrant, multiplied by the difference between the exercise price of the Warrants and the
“Fair Market Value” (defined below) by (y) the Fair Market Value; provided, however, that no cashless exercise shall
be permitted unless the Fair Market Value is higher than the exercise price of the Warrants. The “Fair Market Value”
shall mean the average reported last sale price of the Common Stock for the 10 trading days ending on the day prior to the Company’s
receipt of the applicable exercise notice. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Company shall not be required to
net-cash settle the Warrants.


 


	 	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	 	PAXMED INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Lishan Aklog, MD
	 	 	Name:	Lishan Aklog, MD
	 	 	Title: 	Chairman & CEO


 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


 


HCFP CAPITAL PARTNERS III LLC


 


 


	By:	/s/ Lishan Aklog, MD	 
	 	Name:	Lishan Aklog, MD	 
	 	Title: 	Manager
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2048

DONG JI,

 Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: May 17, 2018

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leslie Anne Davis, Joseph R. Melanson, CROWELL & MORING, LLP, Washington, 

D.C., for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Nancy E. 

Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brooke M. Maurer, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dong Ji, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal 

from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his request for asylum and withholding of 

removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Ji’s merits 

hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not 

compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, 

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

See In re Ji (B.I.A. Aug.9, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              88
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    88
<PP&E>                                           2,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,279)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       667
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,087)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNT IS LESS THAN $.01 PER SHARE
</FN>


</TABLE>