alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 28, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60975 Summary Calendar

LEONORA ZAKA, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 196 696

-------------------- Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lenora Zaka, a citizen of Albania, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We review legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). We will reverse the BIA’s asylum determination only if the evidence compels a different result. Girma v. INS ,No. 03-60975 -2- 283 F.3d 664, 669 (5th Cir. 2002); see INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992). The Attorney General may grant asylum to refugees. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A refugee is a person who is outside of his or her country and is unable or unwilling to return “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Based on the IJ’s findings, the BIA concluded that Zaka had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on any of the statutorily enumerated grounds. After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. Zaka has failed to show that the Government’s position in her case is inconsistent with its position in another case pending before the Attorney General. If Zaka believed that she was entitled to asylum under proposed rules applicable to victims of domestic violence, she could have raised this issue prior to the filing of her reply brief. Rodriguez v. INS , 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
#### Sapp, treasurer, *v.*Graham.

Submitted July 18, 1906.

Decided February 15, 1907.

Mandamus. Before Judge Martin. ■ Dodge superior court. June 1, 1906.

*W. M. Clements*and *W. Ij. & Warren Grice,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. D. Graham*and *8. W. Harris,*contra.

Evans, J.

This ease is controlled by the case of *Sapp*v. *DeLacy,*ante.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit (21)


                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE MEAD CORPORATION*



                                                State of Jurisdiction
          Name                                     of Incorporation
          ----                                  ---------------------

          Escanaba Paper Company                     Michigan
          Forest Kraft Company                       Delaware
          M-B Pulp Company                           Delaware
          MCB Woodlands and Services, Inc.           Alabama
          Mead Coated Board, Inc.                    Delaware
          Mead Foreign Holdings, Inc.                Ohio
          Mead Holdings B.V.                         Netherlands
          Mead Holdings S.A.                         France
          Mead Packaging International, Inc.         Ohio
          Mead Packboard B.V.                        Netherlands
          Mead Panelboard, Inc.                      Ohio


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

     *    The names of additional subsidiaries have been omitted because the
          unnamed subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate as a single
          subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.
          Subsidiaries which are consolidated into the above-listed subsidiaries
          are also omitted.


                                      68
Exhibit
      23.2





CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEER





As
      independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the use of our name
      included herein or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K by McMoRan
      Exploration Co. and to the reference to our estimates of reserves and present
      value of future net reserves as of December 31, 2006, into McMoRan Exploration
      Co.’s previously filed Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File Nos.
      333-121779, 333-95195 and 333-108408) and on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-57484,
      333-67485, 333-87380, 333-90170, 333-105533, 333-115335 and
      333-124740).





RYDER
      SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.


PETROLEUM
      ENGINEERS





Houston,
      Texas


March
      13,
      2007
Editorial Note on Part 8
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 8 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

§ 8.16 Oral proceedings. ( a ) With respect to any proceedings before it, the Board may upon its own initative or upon request of any interested party direct the interested parties to appear before the Board or its designee at a specified time and place in order to simplify the issues persented or to take up any other matters which may tend to expedite or facilitate the disposition of the proceeding.
( b ) In its discretion, the Board or a single presiding member may permit oral argument in any proceeding. The Board or the presiding member shall prescribe the time and place for argument and the time allocated for argument. A petitioner wishing to make oral argument should make the request therefore in the petition.
§ 503.51 Procedures for initiating and undertaking review. ( a ) A respondent, the WHD, or any other party wishing review, including judicial review, of the decision of an ALJ will, within 30 days of the decision of the ALJ, petition the ARB to review the decision. Copies of the petition will be served on all parties and on the ALJ.
( b ) No particular form is prescribed for any petition for the ARB's review permitted by this part. However, any such petition will: ( 1 ) Be dated;
( 2 ) Be typewritten or legibly written;
( 3 ) Specify the issue or issues stated in the ALJ decision and order giving rise to such petition;
( 4 ) State the specific reason or reasons why the party petitioning for review believes such decision and order are in error;
( 5 ) Be signed by the party filing the petition or by an authorized representative of such party;
( 6 ) Include the address at which such party or authorized representative desires to receive further communications relating thereto; and
( 7 ) Include as an attachment the ALJ's decision and order, and any other record documents which would assist the ARB in determining whether review is warranted.
( c ) If the ARB does not issue a notice accepting a petition for review of the decision within 30 days after receipt of a timely filing of the petition, or within 30 days of the date of the decision if no petition has been received, the decision of the ALJ will be deemed the final agency action.
( d ) Whenever the ARB, either on the ARB's own motion or by acceptance of a party's petition, determines to review the decision of an ALJ, a notice of the same will be served upon the ALJ and upon all parties to the proceeding.
Exhibit 10.31 


 


AMENDMENT TO 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 





	DATE OF AMENDMENT:	May 24, 2012
	 	 
	DATE OF NOTE 1:	October 20, 2011
	PRINCIPLE AMOUNT:	$254,909
	ACCRUED INTERST	 
	THROUGH APRIL 30, 2012:	$32,803.77
	INTEREST RATE:	Two percent (2.0%) per month
	 	 
	 	 
	HOLDER:	MacKov Investments Limited
	 	 
	MAKER:	Richfield Oil & Gas Company
	 	 
	DUE DATE:	April 30, 2012







  


The Note is hereby amended and modified as follows:


 


Whereas the note had a maturity date of April 30, 2012 it shall
be amended to mature on demand thereafter until paid in full.


 


Whereas at April 30, 2012 the note principal was $254,909 and
the accrued interest was $32,803.77 the accrued interest shall be capitalized into the note and the new note principal shall be
$287,712.77. The new principal balance shall accrue 2% monthly interest until paid in full.


 


Except as amended hereby, the note shall remain unchanged and
in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have set their hands, as of
the date first above written.


 





	HOLDER:	 	MAKER:
	 	 	 
	MacKov Investments Limited	 	RICHFIELD OIL & GAS COMPANY
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:/S/: Glenn G. MacNeil 	 	By: /S/: Michael A. Cederstrom 
	Glenn G. MacNeil,	 	Michael A. Cederstrom, General Counsel and
	President of MacKov Investments Limited	 	Corporate Secretary
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1132 Prepped by Candice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 5 ) II-C- 2 Docket Number: 

# A-86-0 3

Printed 4/18/2008 2:24:46

PM Sheet 5 of 122P. 2 

### fl-ft,-03 JL-t-JL 

# \M-r **'"-£< \6 ^

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

WASHINGTON

, D.C . 2046 0 

# v» Mr . Georg e A . Schaefe r Chairma n an dChie f Executiv e Office r OFFICEO F

_. . , . _ AI RAN D RADIATIO N Caterpillar , inc . Peoria , Illinoi s 6162 9 Dea r Mr . Schaefer : Than k yo u for your lette r describin g your concern s wit h meeting the 199 1 an d 199 4 diese l particulat e standard s an d the effec t o f fue l sulfu r conten t on suc h compliance . Briefl y recapping our effort s in thi s are a t o date , i n Jun e o f 198 6 w e distribute d for commen t a preliminaryrepor t o n the effect s o f diese l fue l qualit yon emission s an d performance . W e hav e bee n analyzin g th

e comment s receive d o n thi s report , an d i n additio n have bee n preparing mor e detaile d analyse s o f some o f the key issue s suc h a s th e effec t o f sulfu r o n engin e wear , the conversio n o f sulfu r dioxid e t o sulfat e in the atmospher e an d th e effec t o f sulfu r conten t on require d engin e contro l technolog

yan d cost . Thes e analyse s wil l b e compile d int o a stud yt o b e complete d nea r th e en d o f thi s year . Adecisio n t o procee d wit h a forma l rulemaking aime d a t regulating diese l fue l qualit ywil l be mad e upo n completio n o f thi s study . On e o f the mor e difficul t aspect s o f thi s stud yi s our evaluatio n o f th

e type s o f technologie s tha t woul d be use d t o mee t th

e 199 1 an

d 199 4 heavy-dut ydiese l particulat e standard s on curren t fue l versu s a low-sulfu r fue l an d an yresultan t cos t differential . We 'have requeste d detaile d projection s o n thi s issu e fro

mai l o f th

e heavy-dut yengin e manufacturer s in our meeting s on tra

p developmen t efforts . T o date , a numbe r o f manufacturer s hav e submitte d genera l statement s concernin g th e effec t o f lo

w sulfu r fue l on potentia l compliance . However , littl e detaile d informatio n supporte d b ycomplet e tes t dat a ha s bee n received . Suc h informatio n i s critica l i f EP Ai s t o accuratel yquantif yth e effec t o f aiese l fue l sulfu r contro l o n th e heavy-dut ydiese l industry , an d determin e the industry' s abilit yt o mee t th e 199 1 an

d 199 4 standard s wit h an d withou t sulfu r control . Thus , an yadditiona l informatio n tha t Caterpilla r coul d suppl yo n thi s issu e woul d b e ver yhelpful .P. 3

Than k yo u agai n fo r providin g your perspectiv e o n the importanc e o f reducing sulfur level s in diese l fuel . I assur e yo u your comment s wil l receiv e carefu l consideratio n in our deliberatio n o n thi s issue . Sincerely , J . Crai g Potte r Assistan t Administrato r for Ai r an

d Radiatio n
#### § 780.923 “Between the farm and any point within the same State.”

The transportation of fruit or vegetable harvest workers is permitted “between the farm and any point within the same State”. The exempt transportation of such harvest workers therefore includes their movement to and from the farm (see 107 Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) p. 4523). Such transportation must, however, be from or to points “within the same State” in which the farm is located. Crossing of State lines is not contemplated. Thus, the exemption would not apply to day-haul transportation of fruit or vegetable harvest workers between a town in one State and farms located in another State. Also, the intent to exempt “transportation of the harvest crew to and from the farm” (see 107 Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) p. 4523) within a single State would not justify exemption of the transportation of workers from one State to another to engage in harvest work in the latter State. The exemption does not apply to transportation of persons on any trip, or any portion of a trip, in which the point of origin or point of destination is in another State. Subject to these limitations, however, where employees are being transported for employment in harvesting they may be picked up in any place within the State, including other farms, packing or processing establishments, factories, transportation terminals, and other places. The broad term “any point” must be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the exemption to facilitate the harvesting of fruits or vegetables. Transportation from a farm to “any point” within the same State (such as a factory or processing plant) where some other purpose than harvesting is served is not exempt.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 105 (Wednesday, May 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13573]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 052400E]


Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (PFMC) Groundfish 
Management Team (GMT) will hold a working meeting which is open to the 
public.

DATES: The GMT working meeting will begin Monday, June 19, 2000 at 1 
p.m. and may go into the evening until business for the day is 
completed. The meeting will reconvene from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday, 
June 20 through Thursday, June 22 at 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at NMFS Northwest Regional Office, 
7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA; telephone: (206) 526-6120.
    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth 
Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Glock, Groundfish Fishery 
Management Coordinator, (503) 326-6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the GMT meeting is to prepare 
reports and technical advice for the upcoming PFMC meeting and in 
support of PFMC decisions. The GMT will discuss, receive reports, and/
or prepare reports on the following topics during this working session, 
(1) GMT organization and work plan for 2000; (2) draft groundfish 
strategic plan; (3) rockfish bycatch rates and related issues; (4) 
observer program issues; (5) sustainable groundfish harvest rates; (6) 
plan amendment for bycatch and other issues; (7) capacity reduction and 
permit issues; (8) rebuilding plans for canary and cowcod rockfish, and 
other species as necessary; (9) inseason catch monitoring, projections, 
and management; and (10) stock assessment priorities and biological 
sampling.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before the GMT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of 
formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those 
issues specifically listed in this notice any any issues arising after 
publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 
305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservationa and Management 
Act, provided the publci has been notified of the Council's action to 
take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Dr. Don McIsaac at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days 
prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 24, 2000.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-13573 Filed 5-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### § 780.148 “Any” practices meeting the requirements will qualify for exemption.

The language of section 3(f) of the Act, in defining the “secondary” meaning of “agriculture,” provides that any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such (his or its) farming operations are within the definition. The practices which may be exempt as “agriculture” if so performed are stated to include forestry or lumbering operations, preparation for market, and delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market. The specification of these practices is illustrative rather than limiting in nature. The broad language of the definition clearly includes all practices thus performed and not merely those named (see *Maneja* v. *Waialua,* 349 U.S. 254).
#### § 794.120 Meaning of “annual gross volume of sales.”

The annual gross volume of sales of an enterprise consists of its gross receipts from all types of sales during a 12-month period (§ 794.122). The gross volume derived from all sales transactions is included, and will embrace among other things receipts from service, credit, or similar charges. However, credits for goods returned or exchanged (as distinguished from “trade-ins”), rebates, discounts, and the like are not ordinarily included in the annual gross volume of sales. In determining whether the million dollar limit on annual gross sales volume is or is not exceeded, the sales volume from all the related activities which constitute the enterprise must be included; the dollar volume of the entire business in all establishments is added together. Thus, the gross volume of sales will include the receipts from sales made by any gasoline service stations of the enterprise, as well as the sales made by any other establishments of the enterprise. These principles and their application are considered in more detail in parts 776 and 779 of this chapter, which contain general discussions of “annual gross volume” as used in other provisions of the Act.
#### § 793.14 Employed by.

The application of the exemption is limited to employees “employed by” a radio or television station. The question whether a worker is employed “by” a radio or television station depends on the particular facts. (See *Rutherford Food Corporation* v. *McComb,* 331 U.S. 722; *U.S.* v. *Silk,* 331 U.S. 704.) In general, however, an employee is so employed where he is hired by the radio or television station, engages in its work, is paid by the radio or television station and is under its supervision and control. Employees of independent contractors and of others who work for a radio or television station but who are not “employed by” such station are not exempt under this exemption even if they engage in the named occupation. (*Mitchell* v. *Kroger,* 248, F. 2d 935.)
EXHIBIT  32.1


                            Section 906 Certification
                            -------------------------

     The  following  statement  is  provided by the undersigned to accompany the
Form  10-Q  of  the MLM Index Fund pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002  (18  U.S.C.  1350).

     The  undersigned  certifies  that  the  foregoing Report on Form 10-K fully
complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m)  and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of  operations  of  the  MLM  Index  Fund.


November 21, 2005

/s/ Timothy J. Rudderow
-----------------------------
Timothy J. Rudderow
President
Mount Lucas Management Corporation,
the manager of the MLM Index Fund
STATE OF MISSOURI Jeremiah W (Jay) Nixon, Governor • Sara Parker Pauley,Director



# DEPARTMENT OFNATURAL RESOURCES
\ / J 1 /VV / \ www.dnr.mo.gov


## AUG 1 5 2014
Ms. Cecilia Tapia, Director EPA, Region 7 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, KS 66219 Dear Ms,. I am writing in response to your June 17, 2014, letter regarding partial deletion ofthe Callahan Property (OU03) from the Ellisville SuperfundNational Priorities List (NPL) site. The Superfund Section ofthe Missouri Department ofNatural Resources' Hazardous Waste Program (HWP) has reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7's (EPA) Removal Action Reports referenced in your letter, and has assisted the EPA in field oversight ofthe removal actions. The HWP's Superfund Section has also reviewed the draft

### FederalRegisterNotice ofIntent to Partially Delete the Callahan Property ffom theNPL, and provided comments to the EPA's Remedial Project manager. We have concluded, based on the available information, that the two removal actions conducted at the Callahanproperty have resolved all concerns resulting from the contamination that wasplaced on the property, and have achieved the remedial action objectives for OU03 Callahan. Therefore, the Department concurs withpartial deletion of the Callahan property from the Ellisville Superfund Site, and understands that the other active OUsofthe Ellisville Site will remain on the NPL. The Department appreciates the EPA's efforts in returning the Callahan property to a condition which is suitable for anyproposed future use without need ofinstitutional controls. We also appreciate the opportunity to provide substantial state involvement inthe removal actions at the Callahan property, and the opportunity to review and comment on the draft

### Federal Register notice andprovide concurrence with partial deletion ffom theNPL. Webelieve this is a significant accomplishment for the EPA and the Department. Ifyou or your staffhave any questions or concerns please contact Don Van Dyke with the Department's Hazardous Waste Program, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102, by e-mail at don.van.dyke@dnr.mo.tzov. or by telephone at (573) 522-3351. Sincerely, U. RESOURCES (

### Jl0% 40470960 Sara Parker Pauley Director Superfund 

### SPP:dvj ouoo

Celebrating 40years oftaking care ofMissouri's naturalresources. To learn more about the Missouh Department ofNatural Resources visit dnr.mo.gov.

u Recycled Paper