alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2999

___________

Roger Manuel Brandao, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED]

United States, *

*

Respondent. *

*

___________

No. 02-3342

___________

Roger Manuel Brandao, *

*

Petitioner - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of North Dakota.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General; *

James W. Ziglar, Commissioner of *

Immigration and Naturalization *

Service; Curtis Aljets, St. Paul District *

Director of the Immigration and *

Naturalization Service; Brian Berg, *

U.S. Marshal, *

*

Respondents - Appellees. *
1

The Honorable Richard Goldberg, Judge of the United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.

-2-

___________

Submitted: November 20, 2003

Filed: January 26, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, LAY, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roger Manuel Brandao, a native of Portugal, appeals the district court's1

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus to prevent the

Immigration and Naturalization Service from reinstating his previous order of

deportation. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we

conclude the district court correctly denied Brandao's petition. Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### § 102-74.520 How much time does the Regional Officer have to affirm or reverse the Federal agency buildings manager's decision after receiving the notification of appeal from the affected person or organization?

The Regional Officer must affirm or reverse the Federal agency buildings manager's decision, based on the information submitted, within 10 calendar days of the date on which the Regional Officer received notification of the appeal. If the decision is not rendered within 10 days, the application will be considered to be approved or the permit validly issued. The Regional Officer will promptly notify the applicant or permittee and the buildings manager of the decision and the reasons therefor.
From: Velazquez, Reynaldo (Miami) Rey.Velazquez@jacksonlewis.com

Subject: Re: Collado v. 450 North River Drive, LLC et al - Request for deposition

Date: September 22, 2023 at 1:23PM

To: Juan Aragon juan@fairlawattorney.com, Allan S. Reiss, Esq. asr@levinelawfirm.com, Sarangoulis, Roman (Miami)

Roman.Sarangoulis@jacksonlewis.com, Billingsby, Rebecca J. (Miami) Rebecca.Billingsby@jacksonlewis.com

Cc: Brian Pollock brian@fairlawattorney.com

Hi Brian. We thought the plan was to try to mediate before getting knee-deep in discovery and you appear to have changed that plan

without addressing the issue. In relation to the deposition request, we will not provide any witnesses for deposition until we receive

responses to our written discovery, and we confer about creating a discovery plan as it relates to depositions, which will necessarily entail,

at a minimum, deciding the order of depositions and then taking the depositions of the named plaintiff and opt-in plaintiffs that you intend to

have testify at trial. To be clear, we are willing to produce Sia for deposition, but that will only occur once we receive substantive responses

to a written discovery from at least the plaintiff and take his deposition.

To facilitate the taking of all other depositions and additional written discovery that might be necessary, we our receptive to rescheduling the

mediation and propose moving it until after the discovery deadline. As it stands, we have produced tens of thousands of documents, and

working on producing more documents, while you have not even responded to the written discovery that we served as it relates to the

named plaintiff. 

Rey

Reynaldo Velazquez

Attorney at Law

Jackson Lewis P.C.

One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 3500

Miami, FL 33131

Direct: (305) 577-7621 | Main: (305) 577-7600

Rey.Velazquez@jacksonlewis.com | www.jacksonlewis.com

From: Juan Aragon <juan@fairlawattorney.com>

Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:00:21 PM

To: Velazquez, Reynaldo (Miami) <Rey.Velazquez@jacksonlewis.com>; Allan S. Reiss,

Esq. <asr@levinelawfirm.com>; Sarangoulis, Roman (Miami)

<Roman.Sarangoulis@jacksonlewis.com>; Billingsby, Rebecca J. (Miami)

<Rebecca.Billingsby@jacksonlewis.com>

Cc: Brian Pollock <brian@fairlawattorney.com>

Subject: Collado v. 450 North River Drive, LLC et al - Request for deposition

Good day Counsel,

I hope this message finds you well. I was wondering if you could kindly assist me with scheduling a deposition for Sia Hemmati. I would

greatly appreciate it if you could provide me with some available dates in either October or November.

If you have any questions or concerns do not hesitate to contact our office.

Best Regards,

Juan Aragon | Legal Assistant to

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

FairLaw Firm

Ofc: 305.230.4884

Dir: 305.390.8826

Fax: 305.230.4844

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

juan@fairlawattorney.com

www.fairlawattorney.com

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 1 of 1
#### § 105-71.100 Purpose and scope of this part.

This part establishes uniform administrative rules for Federal grants and cooperative agreements and subawards to State, local and Indian tribal governments.
#### § 109-45.5100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart sets forth policies and procedures governing the disposal of DOE-owned foreign excess and surplus personal property.
#### § 301-10.114 May I use contract passenger transportation service for personal travel?

No, you may not use contract passenger transportation service for personal travel.

[FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55704, Sept. 12, 2022]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15867]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-109101-98]
RIN 1545-AW27


Special Rules Regarding Optional Forms of Benefits Under 
Qualified Retirement Plans; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed regulations under section 411(d), permitting 
qualified defined contribution plans to be amended to eliminate some 
alternative forms in which an account balance can be paid under certain 
circumstances, and would permit certain transfers between defined 
contribution plans that are not permitted under regulations now in 
effect.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, June 27, 
2000, at 10 a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaNita Van Dyke of the Regulations 
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7190 (not a toll-
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on Wednesday, 
March 29, 2000, (65 FR 16546), announced that a public hearing was 
scheduled for Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 10 a.m., in Room 6718, 
Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC. The subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under 
section 411(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period 
for these proposed regulations expires on Tuesday, June 27, 2000. The 
outlines of topics to be addressed at the hearing were due on Tuesday, 
June 6, 2000.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. 
As of Friday, June 16, 2000, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, 
the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, June 27, 2000, is cancelled.

Cynthia Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 00-15867 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00120-CV

Marcus North, Appellant

v.

Tyler Reynolds, Appellee

FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY 

NO. 21-2545-F395, THE HONORABLE RYAN D. LARSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on April 7, 2023.

On April 12, 2023, we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to his failure to 

pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice 

requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report 

regarding this appeal by April 24, 2023. Further, the notice advised appellant that his failure to 

comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. To 

date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice, and the 

clerk’s record has not been filed.

If a trial-court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to 

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court 

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed 
2

without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established 

that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Because 

appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s 

record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: May 12, 2023
#### § 301-11.25 Must I provide receipts to substantiate my claimed travel expenses?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77026, Sept. 20, 2024.

Yes. You must provide a lodging receipt and a receipt for every authorized expense over $75, or provide a reason acceptable to your agency explaining why you are unable to furnish the necessary receipt(s) (see § 301-52.4 of this chapter).

Note to § 301-11.25:

Hard copy receipts should be electronically scanned and submitted with your electronic travel claim when your agency has fully deployed ETS and notifies you that electronic scanning is available within your agency (see § 301-50.3 of this chapter). You may submit a hard copy receipt, in accordance with your agency's policies, to support a claimed travel expense only when electronic imaging is not available within your agency.

[FTR Amdt. 2006-04, 71 FR 49375, Aug. 23, 2006]
#### § 301-13.1 What is the policy for paying additional travel expenses incurred by an employee with a special need?

To provide reasonable accommodations to an employee with a special need by paying for additional travel expenses incurred.
# Comments on: 23-1114: ANORUO v. DVA [OPINION], Nonprecedential
§ 105-68.705 What does the suspending official consider in issuing a suspension? ( a ) In determining the adequacy of the evidence to support the suspension, the suspending official considers how much information is available, how credible it is given the circumstances, whether or not important allegations are corroborated, and what inferences can reasonably be drawn as a result. During this assessment, the suspending official may examine the basic documents, including grants, cooperative agreements, loan authorizations, contracts, and other relevant documents.
( b ) An indictment, conviction, civil judgment, or other official findings by Federal, State, or local bodies that determine factual and/or legal matters, constitutes adequate evidence for purposes of suspension actions.
( c ) In deciding whether immediate action is needed to protect the public interest, the suspending official has wide discretion. For example, the suspending official may infer the necessity for immediate action to protect the public interest either from the nature of the circumstances giving rise to a cause for suspension or from potential business relationships or involvement with a program of the Federal Government.
§ 102-80.135 Who is a qualified fire protection engineer? A qualified fire protection engineer is defined as an individual with a thorough knowledge and understanding of the principles of physics and chemistry governing fire growth, spread, and suppression, meeting one of the following criteria: ( a ) An engineer having an undergraduate or graduate degree from a college or university offering a course of study in fire protection or fire safety engineering, plus a minimum of 4 years work experience in fire protection engineering.
( b ) A professional engineer (P.E. or similar designation) registered in Fire Protection Engineering.
( c ) A professional engineer (P.E. or similar designation) registered in a related engineering discipline and holding Member grade status in the International Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51217

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS CASTRO-CATETE

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1334-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Castro-Catete

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 WL 59441 (Jan.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51217

2

7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 301-74.23 May we reimburse travelers for an advanced payment of a conference or training registration fee?

Yes, you may reimburse travelers for an advanced discounted payment for a conference or training registration fee as soon as you have approved their travel to that event, and they submit a proper claim for the expenses incurred.

[FTR Amdt. 2006-02, 71 FR 24598, Apr. 26, 2006. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2013-01, 78 FR 65212, Oct. 31, 2013]
<PAGE>
 
                                  Exhibit 11

                           INNOVASIVE DEVICES, INC.

    Statement Regarding Computation of Pro Forma Net Loss Per Common Share
                     (In thousands; except per share data)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                   Year Ended December 31,
                                                             ------------------------------------
                                                                 1996                   1995
                                                                 ----                   ----
<S>                                                          <C>                    <C>
 Net loss                                                     $   (4,062)             $   (3,734)
                                                              ==========              ========== 
 Weighted average common shares outstanding:

      a.    Shares attributable to common
              stock outstanding                                    4,911                   1,811
 
      b. Shares attributable to mandatorily
              convertible preferred stock                          1,522                   3,002

      c. Shares attributable to common stock
         options pursuant to APB 15  and SAB 83                       32                     126
                                                              ----------              ----------
 Weighted average common shares oustanding                         6,465                   4,939
                                                              ==========              ========== 
 Net loss per share                                               $(0.63)                 $(0.76)
                                                              ==========              ========== 

</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00170-CV

Artie Duhart

v.

Jose Luis Montejano Inc.

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-CCV-60251

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 30, 2022
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3, as amended, (No. 333-112239) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-36020 and 333-108314) andthe related Prospectus of Corautus Genetics Inc. (formerly GenStar Therapeutics Corporation) of our report dated March 18, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Corautus Genetics Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 29, 2004
No. 10-1349.

#### Mitchell *v.*KDJM-FM, Jammin 92.5, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 3(b)






                                       Article IV

                            OFFICERS - CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

Section 1.  Officers
----------  --------

            The  officers  of  the  Corporation   shall  be  elected  by  the  
Board  of Directors.  The  officers  shall be a  President,  one or more 
Vice-Presidents  (one of whom may be  designated  Executive  Vice-President),  
a Secretary  and a Treasurer, and such other officers as the Board of Directors
from time to time shall  determine.  The President  shall be chosen  from among 
the  directors,  but other  officers  need not be directors.  The  officers  
shall be elected  annually by the Board of  Directors  at its first  meeting  
following  the annual  meeting of  shareholders,  and each such  officer shall 
hold  office  until the  corresponding  meeting in the next year and until his 
or her successor  shall have been duly chosen and qualified,  or until he or she
shall have resigned or have been  removed  from  office.  Any  vacancy in any of
the above  offices shall be filled  for the  unexpired  portion of the term by 
the Board of  Directors, at any  regular or special  meeting.  A majority  of 
the entire  Board  shall have power at any regular or special meeting to remove
any officer, with or without cause.
303P15

#### Melchor Zapata Dominguez, Employee v. Francisco Dominguez Masonry, Inc., Employer and Builders Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-1307)

Denied
§ 105-68.415 What must I do if a Federal agency excludes the participant or a principal after I enter into a covered transaction? ( a ) You as an agency official may continue covered transactions with an excluded person, or under which an excluded person is a principal, if the transactions were in existence when the person was excluded. You are not required to continue the transactions, however, and you may consider termination. You should make a decision about whether to terminate and the type of termination action, if any, only after a thorough review to ensure that the action is proper.
( b ) You may not renew or extend covered transactions (other than no-cost time extensions) with any excluded person, or under which an excluded person is a principal, unless you obtain an exception under § 105-68.120.
JEFF L. ROSE, CHIEF JUSTICE

DAVID PURYEAR, JUSTICE

BOB PEMBERTON. JUSTICE

MELISSA GOODWIN, JUSTICE

SCOTT K. FIELD, JUSTICE

CINDY OLSON BOURLAND, JUSTICE

The Honorable Velva L. Price

Civil District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse

P.O.Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Court of Appeals

Third District of Texas

P.O. BOX 12547, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2547

www.txcourte.gov/3rdcoa.aspx

(512) 463-1733

JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK

March #2015

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 03-10-00296-CV

Trial Court Case Number: D-1 -GN-09-003426

Style: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

v. Public Citizen, Inc.

Dear Honorable Velva L. Price:

The Third Court of Appeals has issued the mandate in this cause. Therefore, I am returning

the following original exhibits:

1 box of administrative record.

Very truly yours,

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

Filed in The District Court

of Travis County, Texas

MAR 12 2015

At M.

Velva L. Price, District Clerk

/fait,
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 122 (Friday, June 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15958]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Employee Thrift Advisory Council; Amended Meeting

    FR.00-14739 appearing on page 36906 in the Federal Register of 
Monday, June 12, 2000, change the time of the meeting from 10 a.m. to 2 
p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 2000. Everything else remains the same.

    Dated: June 20, 2000.
Elizabeth S. Woodruff,
General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 00-15958 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-M