alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 1402.

Second Appellate District.

November 12, 1913.]

#### BONNIE ELOUISE McNUTT, as Executrix of the Will of Cyrus F. McNutt, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. ANTON PABST et al., Respondents.

Appeal—Absence of Briefs and Oral Argument—Affirmance.— Where no oral argument is made nor brief filed on an appeal from a judgment and an order refusing a new trial, the appellate court will not assume the burden of investigating the merits of the appeal, but will affirm the judgment and order.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing a new trial. Franklin J. Cole, Judge presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Ben. Goodrich, for Appellants.

Geo. L. Keefer, for Respondents.

THE COURT.

In this cause the transcript on appeal was filed in this court on August 14, 1913. The cause was placed upon the regular calendar for oral argument and on the call of that calendar on October 28, 1913, it was ordered to be sub*233mitted, no appearance being made for oral argument by-counsel for appellants or respondents. No briefs have been filed and the time within which the same are permitted to be filed under the rules of court has long since expired and no order extending the time for such purpose has been asked for or made. Under such conditions an appellate court is not called upon to examine the transcript in search of errors upon which to order a reversal. The presumption is that the order denying a new trial and the judgment were properly made and entered. While rule V governing procedure upon appeal in the supreme court and in this court provides that an appeal may be dismissed, upon notice, for failure to file the transcript or appellant’s points and authorities; even though no such motion be urged on behalf of respondent, as here, the court will nevertheless not assume the burden of investigating the merits of the appeal where the same is not supported by any argument, oral or printed.

The judgment and order are, therefore, affirmed.
§ 216.106 Letter of Authorization. ( a ) A Letter of Authorization, which may be issued only to U.S. citizens, is required to conduct activities pursuant to any regulations established under § 216.105. Requests for Letters of Authorization shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources. The information to be submitted in a request for an authorization will be specified in the appropriate subpart to this part or may be obtained by writing to the above named person.
( b ) Issuance of a Letter of Authorization will be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations.
( c ) Letters of Authorization will specify the period of validity and any additional terms and conditions appropriate for the specific request.
( d ) Notice of issuance of all Letters of Authorization will be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of issuance.
( e ) Letters of Authorization shall be withdrawn or suspended, either on an individual or class basis, as appropriate, if, after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Assistant Administrator determines that: ( 1 ) The regulations prescribed are not being substantially complied with; or
( 2 ) The taking allowed is having, or may have, more than a negligible impact on the species or stock or, where relevant, an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses.
( f ) The requirement for notice and opportunity for public review in § 216.106(e) shall not apply if the Assistant Administrator determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine mammals concerned.
( g ) A violation of any of the terms and conditions of a Letter of Authorization or of the specific regulations shall subject the Holder and/or any individual who is operating under the authority of the Holder's Letter of Authorization to penalties provided in the MMPA.
§ 9.15 Applicability. The rules in this subpart F apply to: ( a ) A person engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, selling, or leasing multi-line telephone systems;
( b ) A person engaged in the business of installing, managing, or operating multi-line telephone systems;
( c ) Any multi-line telephone system that is manufactured, imported, offered for first sale or lease, first sold or leased, or installed after February 16, 2020.
LETTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDMC AND JOHN R. MCKERNAN, JR.



 Exhibit 10.03 
 [Education Management Letterhead] 
 February 13, 2007 
 John R. McKernan, Jr. 
 c/o Education Management Corporation 
 210 Sixth Avenue 
 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 
 Dear Jock: 
 Reference is made to the Employment Agreement between you and Education Management Corporation
(the “Company”) dated as of June 1, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”), the Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement (Time-Vesting) dated as of August 1, 2006 (the “Time-Vesting Option”), and the Nonqualified Stock
Option Agreement (Performance-Vesting) dated as of August 1, 2007 (the “Performance-Vesting Option” and together with the Time-Vesting Option, the “Option Agreements”). This letter is intended to set forth our agreement with
you regarding the “Transition Event” (as defined in the Employment Agreement). 
 You agree that, for purposes of Sections 1.2, 1.3
(other than the third sentence thereof), 1.4, and 3.2(d)(i) of the Employment Agreement, the Transition Event will be deemed to occur upon Todd Nelson’s becoming the Company’s Chief Executive Officer notwithstanding that it occurs before
the first anniversary of the Effective Date (as defined in the Employment Agreement) and you further agree to waive the 15 advance notice requirement provided for in Section 1.3 of the Employment Agreement. For purposes of Sections 1.3 (third
sentence only), 2.1 and 2.2 of the Employment Agreement, Section 3(d) of the Time-Vesting Option and Section 3(e) of the Performance-Vesting Option, the parties agree that the Transition Event will be 







 
deemed to occur upon the later of the June 30, 2007, and the date that Todd Nelson becomes the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.
Accordingly, if, as has been announced, Todd Nelson becomes the Company’s Chief Executive Officer on February 20, 2007, the Transition Event (for the purposes described in the preceding sentence) will occur on June 30, 2007 and, as of
the occurrence of the Transition Event (x) the Time-Vesting Option shall be vested, and exercisable, with respect to 37,069 of the shares originally subject to it (171,052 x 1.667% x 13 = 37,069) and the Time-Vesting Option shall be forfeited
with respect to 53,393 shares and (y) the numerator in the fraction described in Section 3(e) of the Performance-Vesting Option shall be 13 and the Performance -Vesting Option shall be forfeited with respect to 53,396 shares. 

Except as expressly modified herein, the Employment Agreement and the Option Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

 2 








 If the foregoing accurately reflects our understanding, kindly acknowledge your agreement by signing
below where indicated and returning the executed letter to me. 
  

			
	Education Management Corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/ Edward West
		 	Edward West


  

	
	AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
	This 13th day of February, 2007
	
	/s/ John R. McKernan, Jr.
	John R. McKernan, Jr.

  

 3
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 179 (Friday, September 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 54537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7725]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Indigenous Global Development Corporation; Order 
of Suspension of Trading

September 13, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Indigenous Global Development Corporation (``IGDC'') because it has not 
filed a periodic report since the quarter ending March 31, 2005.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed 
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 13, 
2006, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on September 26, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-7725 Filed 9-13-06; 11:18 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

LINDA MCGREW; et al.,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Nos. 14-55090

 14-55292

D.C. Nos. 2:13-cv-03591-MWF

 2:13-cv-07798-MWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2015** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, federal prisoner Michael Curtis Reynolds

appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

FILED

FEB 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
habeas corpus petitions. We review the dismissal of a section 2241 petition de

novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we

affirm.

In Appeal No. 14-55090, Reynolds challenges the loss of good time credits

following a disciplinary hearing. In Appeal No. 14-55292, Reynolds contends that

the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) improperly classified him as a high-security-risk

inmate and improperly housed him in a high-security facility. The district court

did not err by dismissing either of Reynolds’s petitions for failure to exhaust the

administrative remedies available to him. See Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042,

1045 (9th Cir. 2012). Although Reynolds attempted to appeal the BOP’s

decisions, the record shows that the BOP rejected his appeals because they did not

meet BOP requirements. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.17 (2012). We are also unpersuaded

by Reynolds’s argument that the documents submitted to the district court by

respondents were fraudulent or false. 

We reject as meritless Reynolds’s challenges to the district court’s handling

of his petitions. 

2 14-55090 & 14-55292
Reynolds’s request for an emergency temporary restraining order is denied. 

AFFIRMED.

3 14-55090 & 14-55292
§ 73.1695 Changes in transmission standards. The FCC will consider the question whether a proposed change or modification of transmission standards adopted for broadcast stations would be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, upon petition being filed by the person proposing such change or modification, setting forth the following: ( a ) The exact character of the change or modification proposed;
( b ) The effect of the proposed change or modification upon all other transmission standards that have been adopted by the FCC for broadcast stations;
( c ) The experimentation and field tests that have been made to show that the proposed change or modification accomplishes an improvement and is technically feasible;
( d ) The effect of the proposed change or modification in the adopted standards upon operation and obsolescence of receivers; ( 1 ) Should a change of modification in the transmission standards be adopted by the FCC, the effective date thereof will be determined in the light of the considerations mentioned in this paragraph (d);
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( e ) The change in equipment required in existing broadcast stations for incorporating the proposed change or modification in the adopted standards; and
( f ) The facts and reasons upon which the petitioner bases the conclusion that the proposed change or modification would be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
[49 FR 4211, Feb. 3, 1984]
No. 11-6154.

#### Smoak *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
AFS-11-105-E Jan 20, 2011

Exemption No. 9807B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-1222

Mr. Eric Lampert Director of Operations NetJets Aviation, Inc. 4111 Bridgeway Avenue Columbus, OH 43219

Dear Mr. Lampert:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9807, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 15, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of NetJets Aviation, Inc. (NJA ) for an extension of Exemption No. 9807, as amended. That exemption from § 135.225(f) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows NJA to make instrument flight rules (IFR) takeoffs from foreign and military airports when the visibility is less than 1 statute mile or make an instrument approach when the visibility is less than 1⁄2 mile.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to NJA.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9807, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9807, as amended, remain the same.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Provisions of this exemption apply to all turbojet-powered airplanes operated by NJA.

2. Crews utilizing this exemption must have been trained and qualified to the standards specified under part 121, subparts N and O.

3. Airports at which NJA intends to utilize the provisions of this exemption must have had approach procedures developed in accordance with U.S. Terminal Instrument Procedures or International Civil Aviation Organization Procedures for Air Navigations Services criteria.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9807, as amended, to May 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9807.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
§ 27.1418 Payment obligations. ( a ) Each eligible space station operator is responsible for the payment of its own satellite transition costs until the auction winners have been announced.
( b ) Licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service shall pay their *pro rata* share of: ( 1 ) The reasonable costs of the Relocation Payment Clearinghouse and, in the event the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau selects the Relocation Coordinator, the services of the Relocation Coordinator and its staff;
( 2 ) The actual relocation costs, provided that they are not unreasonable, for eligible space station operators and incumbent fixed service licensees; the actual transition costs, provided they are not unreasonable, associated with the necessary migration and filtering of incumbent earth stations;
( 3 ) Any lump sum payments, if elected by incumbent earth station operators in lieu of actual relocation costs; and
( 4 ) Specified accelerated relocation payments for space station operators that clear on an accelerated timeframe. Licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service shall be responsible for the full costs of space station transition, the Relocation Payment Clearinghouse, and, if selected and established by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the Relocation Coordinator, based on their *pro rata* share of the total auction bids of each licensee's gross winning bids in the auction overall; they shall be responsible for incumbent earth station and incumbent fixed service transition costs in a Partial Economic Area based on their *pro rata* share of the total gross bids for that Partial Economic Area.
( c ) Following the auction, and every six months until the close of the transition, licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service shall submit their portion of estimated transition costs to a reimbursement fund, and the Relocation Payment Clearinghouse will reimburse parties incurring transition costs. If actual costs exceed estimated costs, the Relocation Payment Clearinghouse shall perform a true-up for additional funds from 3.7 GHz Service licensees.
( d ) If 3.7 GHz band license is relinquished to the Commission prior to all relocation cost reimbursements and accelerated relocation payments being paid, the remaining payments will be distributed among other similarly situated 3.7 GHz band licensees. If a new license is issued for the previously relinquished rights prior to final payments becoming due, the new 3.7 GHz band licensee will be responsible for the same *pro rata* share of relocation costs and accelerated relocation payments as the initial 3.7 GHz band license. If a 3.7 GHz band licensee sells its rights on the secondary market, the new 3.7 GHz band licensee will be obligated to fulfill all payment obligations associated with the license.
Case 16-28349 Doc 11 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/15/16 06:50:22 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Eduardo LARA-VALADEZ, Appellant.

No. 03-2107.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 5, 2004.

Decided March 16, 2004.

*185Robert Christopher Sigler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Eduardo Lara-Valadez, Reg. #17817-047, Jackson County Jail, Holton, KS, pro se.

James E. Mitchell, Omaha, NE, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BYE, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Eduardo Lara-Valadez (Lara-Valadez) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 121 months in prison and 5 years supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Lara-Valadez argues that the Sentencing Guidelines for methamphetamine offenses are unconstitutionally severe, and that the district court should have departed downward based on his age and background.

We reject both arguments. *See United States v. Montanye,*996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir.1993) (en banc) (plain-error standard of review for issues not raised below). First, the constitutional argument is conclusory and unsupported. *See United States v. Frieberger,*28 F.3d 916, 920-21 (8th Cir. 1994) (defendant who challenges constitutionality of methamphetamine Guidelines must demonstrate that Guidelines were based on forbidden or suspect ground or that they do not survive rational-basis review), ce*rt. denied,*513 U.S. 1097, 115 S.Ct. 765, 130 L.Ed.2d 662 (1995). Second, Lara-Valadez did not request a departure below, and the district court was not required to grant one sua sponte.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
No. 11-5839.

#### Thrasher *v*. United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 90.15 Scope.

The Public Safety Radio Pool covers the licensing of the radio communications of governmental entities and the following category of activities: Medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with disabilities, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated places, communications standby facilities, and emergency repair of public communications facilities. Entities not meeting these eligibility criteria may also be licensed in the Public Safety Radio Pool solely to provide service to eligibles on one-way paging-only frequencies below 800 MHz, *i.e.,* those frequencies with the assignment limitations appearing at § 90.20(d)(13) or (d)(60). Private carrier systems licensed on other channels prior to June 1, 1990, may continue to provide radio communications service to eligibles. Rules as to eligibility for licensing, frequencies available, permissible communications and classes and number of stations, and any special requirements are set forth in the following sections.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**

          I, C. Hunton Tiffany, as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fauquier Bankshares, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Fauquier Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

|   | Date: November 14, 2003 |   | /s/ C. Hunton Tiffany                                 |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                    |        |                                                       |
|   |                    |   | C. Hunton TiffanyChairman and Chief Executive Officer |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Fauquier Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Fauquier Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 11-6174.

#### Garcia *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.