alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy (DON) announces the appointment of members to the DON Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Level (SL), and Scientific and Professional (ST) Fiscal Year 2023 Performance Review Board (PRB). The purpose of the PRB is to provide fair and impartial review of the annual SES performance appraisal prepared by the senior executive's immediate and second level supervisor; to make recommendations to appointing officials regarding acceptance or modification of the performance rating; and to make recommendations for performance-based bonuses and performance-based pay increases.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, contact Danielle Dutton, Director, Executive Management Program Office, Manpower and Reserve Affairs at (703) 697-0640 or                         *danielle.a.dutton.civ@us.navy.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Composition of the specific PRB is provided below:

Ms. Mary Tompa

Mr. Frederick Stefany

Mr. Andrew Haeuptle

Ms. Leila Gardner

Ms. E. Anne Sandel

Mr. Thomas Rudowsky

Ms. Giao Phan

Mr. John Pope

Ms. Deline Reardon

Ms. Catherine Kessmeier

Mr. Mark Romano (HLR)

Mr. Timothy Bridges (HLR)

Mr. Robert Hogue (Chair)

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4))

Dated: November 14, 2023.

J.E. Koningisor,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-25453 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
(1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.
 MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.By:
    MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General PartnerBy:
    /s/ THOMAS W. PERRYName:
    Thomas W. Perry*Title:
    Chief Accounting Officer and Controller

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.  
 *
    
    Thomas W. Perry functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Before the Third Division,

March 11, 1949

No. 52925.

#### Dailey, Dailey & Lesh, by George S. Dailey, attorneys for Louis R. Sereinsky doing business as American Cellulose Co. *v.*United States,

petition 6592-R (Indianapolis).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

After careful consideration of the evidence in this case, the court was of opinion that the petitioner acted without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal ot misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Filed 9/10/20 P. v. Almaraz CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANCISCO C. ALMARAZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D077238

 (Super. Ct. No. SCE393591)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed. 

Matthew Aaron Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

Francisco Colin Almaraz entered into a plea agreement with a 

stipulated sentence. Almaraz pleaded guilty to transportation of cocaine for 

sale (Health and Saf. Code,1 § 11352, subd. (a)). Almaraz admitted a weight 

1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code 

unless otherwise specified.
2

allegation (§ 11370.4, subd. (a)(2)). The parties stipulated that Almaraz 

would serve eight years in local prison. The remaining charges and 

allegations were dismissed. 

Almaraz was sentenced to the stipulated eight-year term. The court 

ordered a $2,400 restitution fine and various fees and assessments. The 

defense did not object. 

Almaraz filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate 

of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any 

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the 

record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Almaraz the opportunity 

to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In his change of plea, Almaraz admitted he transported in excess of 

four kilos of cocaine for purposes of sale. 

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks 

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of 

the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 

(Anders), counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in 

evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:

1. Was Almaraz’s plea constitutionally valid;

2. Did the court err by imposing fines, fees and assessments without 

holding a hearing on the defendant’s ability to pay; and

3. Was counsel ineffective for failing to object to the fines, fees and 

assessments.
3

We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. 

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 

Competent counsel has represented Almaraz on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

HALLER, J.
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

Line 

No.

USSGL 

Acct. USSGL Account Title

Begin/ 

End

Fed/ 

NonFed

Reporting 

Type Code

Addl. 

Info.

8

8 131000 Accounts Receivable E N E/U

8 131900 Allowance for Loss on Accounts Receivable E N E/U

8 132000 Funded Employment Benefit Contributions Receivable E N E/U

8 132100 Unfunded FECA Benefit Contributions Receivable E N U

8 132500 Taxes Receivable E N E/U

8 132900 Allowance for Loss on Taxes Receivable E N E/U

8 134000 Interest Receivable - Not Otherwise Classified E N E/U

8 134300 Interest Receivable - Taxes E N E/U

8 134700 Allowance for Loss on Interest Receivable - Not Otherwise 

Classified

E N E/U

8 134800 Allowance for Loss on Interest Receivable - Taxes E N E/U

8 136000 Penalties and Fines Receivable - Not Otherwise Classified E N E/U

8 136300 Penalties and Fines Receivable - Taxes E N E/U

8 136700 Allowance for Loss on Penalties and Fines Receivable - 

Not Otherwise Classified

E N E/U

8 136800 Allowance for Loss on Penalties and Fines Receivable - 

Taxes

E N E/U

8 137000 Administrative Fees Receivable - Not Otherwise Classified E N E/U

8 137300 Administrative Fees Receivable - Taxes E N E/U

8 137400 Criminal Restitution Receivable E N E/U

8 137700 Allowance for Loss on Administrative Fees Receivable - 

Not Otherwise Classified

E N E/U

8 137800 Allowance for Loss on Administrative Fees Receivable - 

Taxes

E N E/U

8 137900 Allowance for Loss on Criminal Restitution Receivable E N E/U

Accounts receivable, net (Note 6)

With the public

Section V

Fiscal Year 2021 Reporting

USSGL Crosswalk - Balance Sheet

Assets (Note 2)

Bulletin No. 2021-17 V BS - 1 April 21, 2021
# Main

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2018-05	&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT V BS - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handouts 04/26/2018
(Reap. Dec. 10348)

Entry No. 25781, etc.

#### Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation *v.*United States

(Decided October 10, 1962)

*Richard Van Steeriburgh*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Q-uilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto, consists of birch plywood exported from Finland in the years 1954 and 1955.

Counsel for the parties have stipulated and agreed that the merchandise and issues involved in the said appeals are the same in all material respects as those in the case of *United States*v. *Plywood & Door Manufacturers*Corporation, 46 Cust. Ct. 797, A.R.D. 133, and that the record in that case may be incorporated as part of the record herein.

The appeals have been submitted for decision upon written stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the birch plywood involved and that such values were those set forth in column “4” of said schedule, packed, less the prorated amounts of the nondutiable charges set forth directly after the description of the merchandise in each said reappraisement case set forth in schedule “A.”

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 66685.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/29476 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of porcelain furniture sets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(34 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 1695), the merchandise was held dutiable under paragraph 1513 of the act or under said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*at the rate in effect at the time the respective items were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,425,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,073,890
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,842,188
<PP&E>                                       1,820,244
<DEPRECIATION>                                 853,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,299,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,879,078
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,512
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,370,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,299,847
<SALES>                                      1,728,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,728,396
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,539,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,846,689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,846,689)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,846,689)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.09)


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 6203

WILLIE YOUNG , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TONYA JAMES, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. ( 6:22

- cv - 00428

- CMC )

Submitted : May 30 , 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Willie Young , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6203 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Willie Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed. In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal peri od under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court entered its order on January 3, 2023, and the appeal period expired on February 2, 2023

. Young filed the notice of appeal on February 21, 2024. * Because Young failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Young could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). USCA4 Appeal: 24-6203 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
No. 53985.

#### American Nile Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 149885-K (B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT NO. 4, dated as of June 23, 2008, to Employment Agreement, dated as of November 3, 2003, by and between Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Alan Kessman (the “Executive”), as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto, dated September 13, 2005, Amendment No. 2 thereto, dated January 3, 2006, and Amendment No. 3 thereto, dated February 13, 2008 (collectively, the “2003 Agreement”).

WHEREAS, the Executive has been acting as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company pursuant to the 2003 Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the 2003 Agreement expires on December 31, 2008; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) recognizes that the Executive’s continued long-term contribution to the growth and success of the Company is essential, and the Board desires to provide for the continued employment of the Executive on the terms set forth in the 2003 Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Executive is willing to continue to serve the Company on the terms and conditions set forth in the 2003 Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in order to effectuate the foregoing, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the 2003 Agreement to extend the term thereof as set forth below. Accordingly, in consideration of the premises and the respective covenants and agreements of the parties herein contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Section 2 of the 2003 Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

“2. Term. The term of the Executive’s employment hereunder (the “term”) will commence on January 1, 2004 (the “Effective Date”) and, unless sooner terminated or extended in accordance with the terms hereof, will expire on December 31, 2009.”

2. Except as specifically amended as set forth herein, the 2003 Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

3. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  

[signature page follows]

 

 

-1-

 

 








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 4 has been executed as of the date and year first above written.

 


	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                        VION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
 
	
                          
 	
                         
 	
                        By: 
 	
                        
 /s/ William R. Miller
 
	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                        William R. Miller
 Chairman of the Board
 
	
                          
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                        
 /s/ Alan Kessman
 
	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                        Alan Kessman
 




 

 

 

-2-
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

May 2, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15950

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 05-00085-CR-ORL-22DAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

GERMAN MUNOZ CANOLA, 

a.k.a. German Munoz,

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(May 2, 2006)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:
2

H. Kyle Fletcher, appointed counsel for German Munoz Canola in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Canola’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
# C_2017086EN.01002701.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)

(Case T-106/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO - Earlier EU figurative mark zero - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 086/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: zero Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Oliver Hemming (Cadbury, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between zero Holding and Mr Hemming.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                                               EXHIBIT 12
                         INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
         Computation of Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                        (in thousands except ratio data)
                                   <CAPTION>
                                                                     Year Ended December 31,
                                                       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds. . . . . . . .    $ 35,910   $ 31,442   $ 24,154   $ 21,647   $ 19,458
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt. . . . . . . .      27,457     38,623     55,977     56,597     71,837
  Interest on Short-term Debt . . . . . . . . . .       4,903      9,207     19,263     13,088        439
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges. . . . . . . . .       3,113      6,754     20,356      3,929      4,961
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals . .      79,300     73,800     74,100     74,000     72,400
       Total Fixed Charges. . . . . . . . . . . .    $150,683   $159,826   $193,850   $169,261   $169,095

Earnings:
  Net Income (Loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $ 96,628   $ 32,776  $(132,032)  $ 75,788   $ 73,992
  Plus Federal Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . .      47,210     18,866     (4,524)    49,725     44,647
  Plus State Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .       4,938     (7,352)     9,237      9,442        190
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above) . . . . . . . . .     150,683    159,826    193,850    169,261    169,095
       Total Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $299,459   $204,116  $  66,531   $304,216   $287,924

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. . . . . . . .        1.98       1.27       0.34       1.79       1.70
</TABLE>