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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

# AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

# ACTION:

Change in Effective Date of Final Modification

# SUMMARY:

On December 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a modification concerning the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin in antidumping investigations (71 FR 77722). The Department is delaying the effective date of the modification until January 23, 2007.

# DATE:

The effective date of the final modification, published at 71 FR 77722 on December 27, 2006, will be January 23, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Barnett (202) 482-2866, Michael Rill (202) 482-3058, or William Kovatch (202) 482-5052.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On December 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce published a modification concerning the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin in antidumping duty investigations (71 FR 77722). After further consultations with Congress and in order to afford adequate time for review, the Department is delaying the effective date of the final modification until January 23, 2007. The methodology set forth in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice published at 71 FR 77722 on December 27, 2006, will be used in implementing the findings of the WTO panel in US- Zeroing (EC) pursuant to section 129 of the URAA concerning the specific antidumping investigations challenged by the EC in that dispute. The Department also will apply the final modification in all current and future antidumping investigations as of the effective date.                

Dated: January 8, 2007.

David M. Spooner,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. E7-457 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]

Billing Code: 3510-DS-S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6609

DEAN L. PRUE, JR., 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

JAMES SMITH, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:07-cv-00665-CCB) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dean L. Prue, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Everett Williams, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dean L. Prue, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Prue has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 16 - 00449 - CR

DUSTIN COLE CLEARMAN APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 57,4 14

- B

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Dustin Cole Clearman ple a d ed guil ty to theft of property under $2,500 with two prior theft convictions, a state

- jail felony. 2 See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2017)

. The trial court impliedly found him guilty and sentenced him to one year in the state

- jail division of the Texas

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 Clearman admitted getting caught stealing an $8 light from a Wal m art.2

Department of Criminal Justice

. 3 Appellant ’ s court
- appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel ’ s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenti ng a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); see In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Anders ). Although Appellant was given an opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, he has not done so, nor has the State filed a brief in response to the Anders brief. After an appellant ’ s court
- appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on th e ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court must independently examine the record to see if any arguable ground may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also consider the briefs and any pro se response. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408

– 09. Only after we conduct our own examination to determine whether counsel has correctly assessed the case may we grant his motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

3 There is no express guilty finding. The trial court, however, assessed p unishment and signed a written judgment. See Holeman v. State , No. 06

- 13

- 00191

- CR, 2014 WL 860336, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Mar. 4, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that assessing punishment and entering written guilty j udgme nt implied rendition of guilt).3

We have carefully reviewed counsel ’ s brief and the record. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that arguably might support the appeal. See Bl edsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial
court ’ s judgment.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: KERR , WALKER, and ME IER , JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: May 24, 2018
* 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 August 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10222 Summary Calendar

GEORGE CORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH/DALLAS COUNTY JAIL; CTMB; DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, Medical Records, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CV-1216

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * George Cornia, Texas prisoner # 1235882, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil right complaint, in which he claimed, inter alia, that he was improperly administered Dilantin, an anti-seizure medication. The district court summarily dismissed the civil rights claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and construed the remaining portion of the complaint as an application for a writ of habeas corpus, which it dismissed on limitation grounds. The district court determinedNo. 07-10222 -2- that Cornia’s complaint that he was improperly administrated Dilantin was time barred by the applicable limitations period. On appeal, Cornia argues that his claim regarding the Dilantin was timely or, in the alternative, that the statute of limitations should be tolled in his favor so as to render his claim timely. Cornia also asserts that his habeas corpus petition was timely filed. Cornia, however, has not briefed that claim, and it is deemed waived. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) We review the dismissal de novo. Geiger v. Jowers , 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). Cornia’s complaint was not filed within two years of the date that he learned that he had been improperly given Dilantin, and it is therefore untimely. See Owens v. Okure , 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989); Piotrowski v. City of Houston , 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995); TEX . C IV . P RAC . AND REM . C ODE § 16.003(a) . Cornia is not entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period. See Fisher v. Johnson , 174 F.3d 710, 715-16 (5th Cir. 1999); Helton v. Clements , 832 F.2d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.35

 

2015 Compensation Information for Registrant’s Executive Officers

 

The table below provides information regarding (i) the base salary of each executive officer of GTx, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of January 1, 2015, with the exception of Dr. Wills, which is effective as of March 2, 2015, and (ii) the restricted stock units granted to each executive in February 2015:

 

	
Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
Title
    	
 
    	
2014 Annual
   Base Salary
    ($)
    	
 
    	
2014 Restricted
   Stock Unit
   Award
    (in shares)(1)
    	
 
    
	
Marc S. Hanover
    	
 
    	
Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
393,317
    	
 
    	
750,000
    	
 
    
	
Robert J. Wills
    	
 
    	
Executive Chairman of the Board
    	
 
    	
200,000
    	
 
    	
1,000,000
    	
 
    
	
Henry P. Doggrell
    	
 
    	
Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and   Secretary
    	
 
    	
363,576
    	
 
    	
500,000
    	
 
    
	
Jason T.   Shackelford
    	
 
    	
Sr. Director,   Accounting & Corporate Controller and principal financing and   accounting officer
    	
 
    	
210,000
    	
 
    	
300,000
    	
 
    


 




(1)         Please see the Company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed on February 19, 2015 for additional information regarding the terms of these restricted stock units.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION** 
I, Matthew Fitzgerald, certify that:
1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Grant Prideco, Inc.; 
2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 
(b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
(c)    disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 
5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 
(a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
(b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.      Date:  December 15, 2004                               Signature:     /s/    Matthew D. Fitzgerald            Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Commonwealth *ex*rel. Linde, Appellant, *v.*Maroney.

Submitted March 11, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts,-JJ.

reargument refused December 19, 1968.

*Elmer Carl*Linde, appellant, in propria persona.

*Cilfert M.*Mihalieh, Assistant District Attorney, and *Joseph, M. Loughran,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*325November 12, 1968:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts,

Appellant, whom we have met before, see *Commonwealth ex rel. Linde v. Maroney,*420 Pa. 31, 215 A. 2d 628 (1966); *Commonwealth ex rel. Linde v. Maroney*416 Pa. 331, 206 A. 2d 288 (1965), claims that he was not informed of his right to direct appeal, with free counsel if necessary, in violation of *Douglas v. California,*372 U.S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814 (1963). *Commonwealth v. Wilson,*430 Pa. 1, 241 A. 2d 760 (1968). Appellant’s petition was dismissed below without a hearing.

Appellant has had a prior collateral hearing at which he was represented by counsel. Under §4(b) (1) of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. §1180-4(b) (1), a knowing and understanding failure to raise an issue at a prior collateral proceeding acts as a waiver of that issue. Section 4(c) provides that failure to raise an issue is rebuttably presumed to be knowing and understanding, where as here appellant was represented by counsel at his prior collateral proceeding, see *Commonwealth v. Satchell,*430 Pa. 443, 243 A. 2d 381 (1968); *Commonwealth v. Mumford,*430 Pa. 451, 243 A. 2d 440 (1968), there is no indication that appellant’s failure to raise his *Douglas*claim was not knowing and understanding. Thus the claim has been waived.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.

Mr. Justice Cohen took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESHANE J. HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-04-2377 LKK KJM P

ORDER

Good cause appearing, Defendants’ request for a 30 day extension of time to file a

response to the complaint is granted. Defendants’ responsive pleading must be filed on or before

September 26, 2005.

DATED: August 31, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

holm2377.eot.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02377-JKS-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

NO. CIV. S-01-2343 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO/SANITATION 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

 /

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

NO. CIV. S-04-2467 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of defendants’ request to consolidate

the above-captioned cases prior to the Status Conference and

Pretrial Conference in March 2006. The court hereby orders that

a formal motion be filed pursuant to such request. 

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 81 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. Defendants shall file a motion to consolidate no later

than February 10, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition brief or statement of

non-opposition by February 17, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. A reply brief,

if any, must be filed by February 22, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. 

3. Hearing on the motion shall be noticed for February 27,

2006 on the court’s Law and Motion Calendar to be heard at 10:00

a.m. in Courtroom 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 30, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 81 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-451]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for 
Revision to Previously Approved Information Collections; Comment 
Request

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The NCUA intends to submit the following information 
collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain 
comments from the public.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until March 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to 
NCUA Clearance Officer or OMB Reviewer listed below:
    Clearance Officer: Mr. Neil McNamara, National Credit Union 
Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428, Fax 
No. 703-837-2861, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4ebfbf7fdfbd9d5ddd8f4dad7c1d59ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="065949454f496b676f6a466865736728616970">[email protected]</span></a>.
    OMB Reviewer: NCUA Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
a copy of the information collection request, should be directed to 
Tracy Sumpter at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke 
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428 or at (703) 518-6444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal for the following collection of 
information:
    OMB Number: 3133-0155.
    Form Numbers: CLF-8700 CLF-8705 CLF-8706 NCUA-7005 CLF-10.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Central Liquidity Facility group/agent membership and loan 
activity forms.
    Description: Forms used in conjunction with agent member's request 
for facility advances, to request agent membership in the Central 
Liquidity Facility and/or to establish terms of relationship between 
credit unions, agent members and agent group representatives.
    Respondents: Credit unions.
    Estimated No. of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 151.
    Estimated Burden Hours per Response: 36.55 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Reporting and other (once).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 92.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: None.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on January 9, 
2007.
Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-451 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

VIRGINIA EVELYN JONES, RICHARD GLEN MYERS, JR., 

and BONNIE TILLEY,

Appellants,

v.

LEISURE VILLAGE, INC. OF STUART,

a for-profit corporation,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3201

[February 15, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Jennifer Waters, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2021CC000677.

George C. Gaskell III, Stuart, for appellants.

Leif J. Grazi of Grazi & Gianino, LLP, Stuart, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1150 (Fla. 1979).

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.