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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30680 USDC No. 97-CV-1363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS ANTONIO GIRON-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

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

- - - - - - - - - - April 28, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that federal prisoner (# 21341-034) Luis Antonio Giron-Rodriguez’s application for a certificate of appealability (COA) is DENIED. A COA is not granted unless there is a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to an applicant for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Giron-Rodriguez has not made such a showing relative to his contentions that he was denied the effectiveNo. 98-30680 -2- assistance of counsel at his sentencing for controlled-substance offenses and upon his direct appeal. Giron-Rodriguez’s contention that he is entitled to relief on authority of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has no merit. Therefore, the district court’s denial of relief on this claim is AFFIRMED. COA DENIED; DENIAL OF § 3582 RELIEF AFFIRMED.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Received: October 24, 2017

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1k1-8zel-1phb

Comments Due: December 11, 2017

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2015-0017

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits; Extension of Applicability 

Date

Comment On: EBSA-2015-0017-0291

Claims Procedure: Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Document: EBSA-2015-0017-DRAFT-0380

Comment on FR Doc # 2017-22082

Submitter Information

Name: Carrie Feit

Address: 3211 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 200

Coral Gables, 33134

Email: carriefeit@fldisabilityattorney.com

General Comment

I am an attorney who represents claimants in disability claims under ERISA. I am 

requesting that the Secretary of Labor NOT delay the effective date of the Final 

ERISA claims regulations adopted on December 19, 2016 . The late objectors (ERISA 

plans, their advocates and insurance companies and their advocates) are seeking to 

undo the regulations after the fact without going through the rule making process. 

These parties had ample opportunity to voice their concerns and to provide data 

supporting their new allegations on cost and other purported challenges by the new 

regulations. To grant them an extension at this point could require the Departments of 

Labor and Justice to expend substantial resources defending the litigation that may be 

filed to contest the violations of the rulemaking process under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).

IN SUM, the DOL has addressed all the concerns raised by the purported need for 

delay. Insurance companies and plans had plenty of time to make their case. The rule 
making process closed. The DOL evaluated the purported cost increases now raised 

by plans and insurance companies and concluded that the costs would be minimal. 

And after careful consideration listening to insurance companies and plans, and 

claimants, DOL implemented well-thought out regulations.

Thank you for your time.
#### HANNAH G. DOLAN AND JAMES P. DOLAN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. GOODMAN WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued October 5, 1932

Decided March 3, 1933.

*169Before Justices Bodine and Donges.

For the defendant-appellant, *Arthur T. Vanderbilt.*

For the plaintiffs-respondents, *George E. Cutley.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff warehoused with the defendant, for hire, household goods. A fire occurred in its warehouse, the goods were damaged and the present action was brought to recover damages because of the alleged negligent storage of the same. The defendant should have prevailed on its motion for a directed verdict.

The principles of law applicable to the case as tried are stated in *Kittay*v. *Cordasco,*103 *N. J. L.*156; 134 *Atl. Rep.*667, and *Armstrong Rubber Co.*v. *Erie Railroad Co.,*103 *N. J. L.*579; 137 *Atl. Rep.*596. It was held in those cases that the inference of negligence, because of the failure to return the goods, may be answered by proof of circumstances attending the loss and if this proof, and all the other circumstances of the case, establishes beyond question that there is no evidence from which the jury might properly find negligence on the part of the bailee, he would be entitled at the hands of the court to a directed verdict.

The proofs in this case indicate that the warehouse was modern and well constructed. Certain films, seized by the prosecutor of Hudson county, had been stored in the warehouse. A fire of incendiary origin occasioned plaintiff’s loss. There is no proof that there was spontaneous combustion of the films. In fact, the proofs indicate that the loss was occasioned by the fire, which started at some distance from the place where the films were stored. The evidence that there was a requirement of the Jersey City fire department that films be stored in steel vaults with a thermostatic heat control does not outweigh the testimony that the films were properly stored. But even assuming otherwise, there is no evidence that improper storage of the films, or any of the goods in the warehouse, was the proximate cause of the injury *170suffered by the plaintiffs. In fact, the proofs all indicate the contrary.

The other matters argued in the appellant’s brief are now unnecessary of discussion.

The judgment is reversed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.95

                                    EXTENSION
                                       TO
                              MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

         This Extension (this "Agreement") to that certain Management Agreement
dated August 23, 1996 (the "Management Agreement"), made as of this 25th day of
March, 2004, is entered into by and between Major Fleet & Leasing Corp., a New
York corporation having its principal office located at 41-40 Northern
Boulevard, Long Island City, New York 11101 (the "MF&L"), and Bruce Bendell and
Harold Bendell, individuals with primary business offices located at 41-40
Northern Boulevard, Long Island City, New York 11101 (jointly, the "Managers").

         WHEREAS, pursuant to the Management Agreement, Messrs. Bendell were
appointed, hired and engaged as Managers to manage the motor vehicle operations
of MF&L, including, but not limited to the purchase, financing, leasing and sale
of motor vehicles; and further

         WHEREAS, the term of the Management Agreement has been extended from
its anticipated initial termination date of December 31, 2001 upon mutual oral
agreement of the parties; and further

         WHEREAS, MF&L and the Managers desire to further extend the term of the
Management Agreement as set forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and agreements
hereinafter contained, it is agreed as follows:

1.       Extension to Management Agreement.

         Section 3(a) of the Management Agreement is hereby deleted in its
         entirety and replaced with the following:

         "(a) The initial term of this Management Agreement shall end on
         December 31, 2005, unless extended as provided below in (b) or sooner
         terminated pursuant to Paragraph 11 below."

2.       Full Force and Effect.

         Except as specifically amended hereby, all of the terms and provisions
of the Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

3.       Counterparts.

         This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall be deemed to
be one and the same instrument.

                                       1
<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective
as of the date first above written.

                                     Very truly yours,

                                     Major Fleet & Leasing Corp.

                                     By: ___________________________
                                     Name:
                                     Title:

                                     Managers

                                     ________________________________
                                     Bruce Bendell

                                     ________________________________
                                     Harold Bendell

                                       2
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsReport on the formal specification and partial verification of the VIPER microprocessorThe formal specification and partial verification of the VIPER microprocessor is reviewed. The VIPER microprocessor was designed by RSRE, Malvern, England, for safety critical computing applications (e.g., aircraft, reactor control, medical instruments, armaments). The VIPER was carefully specified and partially verified in an attempt to provide a microprocessor with completely predictable operating characteristics. The specification of VIPER is divided into several levels of abstraction, from a gate-level description up to an instruction execution model. Although the consistency between certain levels was demonstrated with mechanically-assisted mathematical proof, the formal verification of VIPER was never completed.Document ID19910018472Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBrock, Bishop*(Computational Logic, Inc. Austin, TX, United States)*Hunt, Warren A., Jr.*(Computational Logic, Inc. Austin, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1991Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-187540NAS 1.26:187540Accession Number91N27786Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: ARPA ORDER 58-4155CONTRACT_GRANT: NASA ORDER L-39627CPROJECT: RTOP 505-66-21Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910018472.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**Supplement to Registrant’s Registration Statements on Form S-8**

In accordance with therequirements of Form S-8, the registrant hereby supplements any discussion of the indemnification provisions of the registrant in all of the registrant’s registration statements previously filed on Form S-8 with the following undertaking:

Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act of 1933 may be permitted to directors, officers, andcontrolling persons of the registrant pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, the registrant has been advised that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in theAct and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a director, officer, or controlling person of the registrant inthe successful defense of any action, suit, or proceeding) is asserted by such director, officer, or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has beensettled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          71,930
<SECURITIES>                                     4,614
<RECEIVABLES>                                  678,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,311
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,373
<PP&E>                                          14,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,491
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 820,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,065
<BONDS>                                        610,661
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              469
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           184
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   820,616
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,092
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,144
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    953
<INCOME-TAX>                                       670
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                283
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       283
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
Pakistan's Chief of Naval Staff visits CENTCOM
 By None  , U.S. Central Command
  
 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (March 23, 2010) — Pakistan's Chief of Naval Staff Adm. Noman Bashir met  with U.S. Central Command  Commander, Gen.  David Petraeus in Tampa, Fla., Mar. 23, to reaffirm the strategic partnership  between Pakistan  and the United States.Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Bashir discussed  Pakistan's efforts to combat drug trafficking, terrorism, and piracy,  while highlighting positive U.S.-Pakistan military-to-military  relations. Adm. Bashir reinforced the Pakistan Navy's commitment to  strengthening the bonds between the U.S. and Pakistan Navies.  He  also discussed the Pakistan Navy's anti-piracyefforts and  peacekeeping operations with the United Nations.The Pakistan Navy  has commanded Combined Task  Force (CTF)-150 four times since the task force was  established by the United Nations in 2001. CTF-150, a multinational  task force, conducts maritime  security operations in and around the Strait of Hormuz, Gulf  of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Red Sea.  The task force  wascreated to counter terrorism, prevent smuggling, and deter other destabilizing  activities in the maritime environment.Adm. Bashir is in the  United States on a ten-day visit at the invitation of the U.S. Navy.  While there, he is scheduled to  meet with various U.S. military and government officials to discuss  opportunities for continued coordination and cooperation between the  U.S. and Pakistan navies.
§ 831.6 Request to withhold information. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to information the NTSB receives from any source that may be subject to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) or the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552).
( b ) *Disclosure.* The NTSB is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 1114(b) to disclose, under certain circumstances, confidential commercial information that would otherwise be subject to penalties for disclosure under the Trade Secrets Act, or excepted from disclosure under FOIA. The NTSB may exercise this authority when disclosure is necessary to support a key finding, a safety recommendation, or the NTSB's statement of probable cause of an accident.
( c ) *Disclosure procedures.* Information submitted to the NTSB that the submitter believes qualifies as a trade secret or as confidential commercial information subject either to the Trade Secrets Act or Exemption 4 of FOIA must be so identified by the submitter on each page that contains such information. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 1114(b), the NTSB will provide the submitter of identified information (or information the NTSB has reason to believe qualifies as subject to the Trade Secrets Act or Exemption 4 of FOIA) the opportunity to comment on any disclosure contemplated by the NTSB. In all instances in which the NTSB decides to disclose such information pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1114(b) or 5 U.S.C. 552, the NTSB will provide at least 10 days' advance notice to the submitter.
( d ) *Voluntarily provided safety information.* ( 1 ) The NTSB will not disclose safety-related information voluntarily submitted to the NTSB if the information is not related to the exercise of the NTSB's investigation authority, and if the NTSB finds disclosure of the information might inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information.
( 2 ) The NTSB will review voluntarily provided safety information for confidential content, and will de-identify or anonymize any confidential content referenced in its products.
( e ) *Other.* Any person may make written objection to the public disclosure of any other information, such as interview summaries or transcripts, contained in any report or document filed, or otherwise obtained by the NTSB, stating the grounds for such objection. The NTSB on its own initiative or if such objection is made, may order such information withheld from public disclosure, when, in its judgment, the information may be withheld under the provisions of an exemption to the FOIA (see part 801 of this chapter), and its release is found not to be in the public interest.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

The Board of Directors 

COMARCO, Inc. 

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 33-42350, 33-37863, 33-44943, 33-45096, 33-50068, 33-63219, 333-1749, 333-78677, and 333-42350 on Forms S-8 of Comarco, Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2003, relating to theconsolidated balance sheets of Comarco, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of January 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows, and the related schedule for each of the years in thethree-year period ended January 31, 2003, which report appears in the January 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Comarco, Inc. and Subsidiaries. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Orange County, California 

May 1, 2003
NCTF-52 Begins Mine Countermeasures Exercise
 By , 5th Fleet Public Affairs - NAVCENT
  **ARABIAN GULF –** Commander, Task Force (CTF) 52 began a mine countermeasures (MCM) exercise with Royal Navy forces in the Arabian Gulf, Dec. 8. The exercise will be conducted in the Gulf and will go through Dec. 18. During that time, CTF-52 will be continuing to improve skills in a mix of manned and unmanned MCM systems, like SeaFox, MK 18 underwater unmanned vehicle (UUV) and other emerging MCM technologies.  Bilateral exercises improve the teamwork between the U.S. and its partners, bolstering an already strong MCM presence in the region. CTF-52 is the commander of mine warfare forces in the region.  They conducted nine exercises last year, eight of which were alongside their Royal Navy counterparts. The U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) area of responsibility encompasses about 2.5 million square miles of water area and includes the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea.  This expanse includes three critical choke points at the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal and the Strait of Bab al Mandeb at the southern tip of Yemen.
§ 821.62 Procedures for handling ex parte communications. A Board decisional employee who receives, makes or knowingly causes to be made a communication prohibited by § 821.61 shall place in the public record of the proceeding: ( a ) All such written communications;
( b ) Memoranda stating the substance of all such oral communications; and
( c ) All written responses, and memoranda stating the substance of all oral responses, to the communications described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Christopher Michael Fejes, * From the 42nd District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 25338A.

Vs. No. 11-14-00347-CR * March 26, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Christopher Michael Fejes’s motion to dismiss his

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.