alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Francis Sweeter, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 649]

—Spain, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After a search of petitioner’s prison cube revealed various sheets of paper which were classified as football gambling paraphernalia, petitioner was charged accordingly in a misbehavior report. In his disciplinary hearing, petitioner conceded that the papers were his but contended that they did not relate to gambling. Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the determination that he had possessed gambling paraphernalia.

Petitioner’s concession, together with the testimony of the two correction officers conducting the search and the Hearing Officer’s examination of the papers, provided substantial evidence to support the determination *(see, Matter of Bostic v Coughlin,*216 AD2d 766; *Matter of Hernandez v LeFevre,*150 AD2d 954, *lv denied*74 NY2d 615). It was the function of the Hearing Officer to make the determination as to the nature of the papers. There is no basis for petitioner’s assertion that the records were improperly construed to be gambling paraphernalia by the Hearing Officer.

Petitioner’s contention that he was refused the right to call a witness is without support in the record *(see, Matter of Luna v Coughlin,*210 AD2d 757). Petitioner specifically waived calling the correction sergeant who directed the search. Moreover, the basis for the search in the first instance was irrelevant to the issue of whether petitioner possessed the contraband *(see, Matter of Tankleff v Coughlin,*210 AD2d 815). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find that they are unpersuasive and without merit.

*742Mikoll, J. P., White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Before the Third Division,

July 22, 1941

No. 46179.

#### Protest 978707-G (B) of J. A. Manton (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the ginger root is the same as that the subject of *Wilson*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 63, C. A. D. 126). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1768 was therefore sustained.
No. 58609.

protest 228301-K (New York).

#### I. F. Roncallo *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2586 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 35 Filed 08/05/05 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. Plaintiff’s April 29, 2005, emergency motion, construed a motion for a

preliminary injunction is denied. 

DATED: August 5, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/scot2586.804

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 35 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00164-CV

__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF B.B.C.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 317th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-239,508

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 21, 2022, the trial court signed a judgment terminating the parental 

rights of G.V. to his child, B.B.C. On May 23, 2022, G.V. filed a notice of appeal. 

We questioned our jurisdiction but G.V. did not file a response.

An appeal is accelerated in a case where the trial court ordered termination of 

parental rights. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 109.002, 263.405(a); see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 28.4. Accordingly, a notice of appeal is due twenty days after the trial court 

signs the final judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 28.1(b). The appellant has not 

shown that he filed a notice of appeal within the time authorized for perfecting an 
2

accelerated appeal or for requesting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 26.3. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 13, 2022

Opinion Delivered July 14, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.1** **CERTIFICATION    OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by    Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the    undersigned officer of NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLC (the    “Company”) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company. /s/  Richard    T. Hutton, Jr.    Richard T. Hutton, Jr.*Chief Executive Officer**(principal executive officer)*     Date: August 11, 2006     A signed original of this written statement required by    Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be    retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and    Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished with the    Company’s    Form 10-Q    for the period ended June 30, 2006 pursuant to    18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for    purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference    into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the    date hereof, regardless of any general information language in    such filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven E. Lagreca, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 286]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied the motion to suppress defendant’s statements to the arresting officer. That officer’s questioning of defendant about his identity, the reason for the stop and whether he had been drinking was investigatory, not custodial, interrogation *(see, People v Hennigan,*135 AD2d 1082, 1083; *People v Brown,*104 AD2d 696, 697). Defendant’s contention that the court erred in charging the jury on the elements of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree has not been preserved for review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.—Driving With Ability Impaired.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

169
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

p0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140329 & (19) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140329 

 COA: 293665 

Wayne CC: 06-008239 

ANTHONY EARL HARP, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the December 3, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of 

establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
# C_2007154EN.01000701.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/7

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 154/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 4.6.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 238/07 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | Hessen |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Filmförderung Hessen — Verlängerung der Beihilferegelung N 411/04 |
| Legal basis | Bestimmungen zur Vergabe der Film- und Kinofördermittel des Landes Hessen vom 17. Dezember 2002 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Culture |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 0,9 million; Overall budget: EUR 2,3 million |
| Intensity | 50 % |
| Duration | 1.7.2007-31.12.2009 |
| Economic sectors | Recreational, cultural sporting activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Geschäftsstelle Hessische Filmförderung (HF) des Ministeriums für Wissenschaft und Kunst des Landes Hessen |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

4.6.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 238/07

Member State

Germany

Region

Hessen

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Filmförderung Hessen — Verlängerung der Beihilferegelung N 411/04

Legal basis

Bestimmungen zur Vergabe der Film- und Kinofördermittel des Landes Hessen vom 17. Dezember 2002

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Culture

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 0,9 million; Overall budget: EUR 2,3 million

Intensity

50 %

Duration

1.7.2007-31.12.2009

Economic sectors

Recreational, cultural sporting activities

Name and address of the granting authority

Geschäftsstelle Hessische Filmförderung (HF) des Ministeriums für Wissenschaft und Kunst des Landes Hessen

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
No. 64170.

protest 59/26563 (New York).

#### Bacardi Imports, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
(Reap. Dec. 10129)

#### Conti Rubber Products, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 871557.

(Decided December 19, 1961)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

*William K. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached hereto consists of bicycle tires, tubes, and rim tapes, exported from Germany during the period from December 1958, through December 1959.

Counsel for the parties have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed that the said merchandise is not included in the final list (T.D. 54521) published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956. On the basis of other agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved merchandise is export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and that such value, in each case, is as set forth in schedule A, attached to and made a part of this decision.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

Schedule A

The export values for the involved dates of exportation in the following reap-praisement appeals are represented by the entered values:

R60/9196/3491

R60/9197/3492

R60/9198/3493

R60/9199/3494

R60/9200/3495

R60/9211/3476

R60/9213/3478

R60/9214/3479

R60/9215/3480

R60/9219/3484

R60/9221/3486

R60/9223/3488

R60/10235/3830

R60/10236/3831

R60/10237/3832

*560

R60/10240/3835

R60/10241/3836

R60/10244/3839

R60/10245/3840

R60/10249/3844

R60/10251/3846

R60/10253/3848

R60/10254/3849

R60/10501/4013

R60/10502/4014

The export values for the involved dates of exportation in the following re-appraisement appeals are represented by the appraised unit prices, less 10 per centum discount, less the nondutiable charges for overseas freight and insurance, costs for duty, customs clearance charges, and excise tax, as invoiced, packed:

R60/10234/3829

R60/10239/3834

R60/10242/3837

R60/10246/3841

R60/10247/3842

R60/10250/3845
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2159

KAMRAN TAVAKOLI-NOURI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98-

216-AMD)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kamran Tavakoli-Nouri, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The order from which Tavakoli-Nouri appeals was filed on

7-13-98, and entered on the district court's docket on 7-15-98,

in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a). See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Kamran Tavakoli-Nouri appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action filed under the Freedom of Information Act. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Tavakoli-Nouri v. CIA, No. CA-98-216-AMD

(D. Md. July 15, 1998).* 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 61916.

#### E. Leitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 251735-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is not an entirety, but is susceptible of use and is used separately. Following *John P. Herbert & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v EDWARD ROBERTSON, Airman Third Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

11 USCMA 36, 28 CMR 260

*37No. 13,409

Decided November 20, 1959

*Lieutenant Colonel James L. Kilgore*and *Lieutenant Colonel Philip J. Williamson*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel John F. Hannigan*and *Lieutenant Colonel Francis R. Coogan*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

George W. Latimer, Judge:

A general court-martial convicted accused of an unauthorized absence and sixteen specifications of larceny, violations respectively of Articles 86 and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 886 and 921. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor and partial forfeitures for one year, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority disapproved the finding of guilty as to one specification of larceny, reduced the amount of the forfeitures, but otherwise approved the findings and sentence. Thereafter the board of review affirmed, and we granted accused’s petition for review limited to the same instructional issue with which we were concerned in United States v Dinsmore, 11 USCMA 28, 28 CMR 252, decided this date.

As in that case, there is no need for us to determine the propriety of the instruction. Upon his arraignment, accused pleaded guilty to absence without leave and, as to the larcenies with which we are concerned in this appeal, not guilty but guilty of the lesser included offense of wrongful appropriation. Thus, as in the above cited case, accused, by his plea, left in issue only the intent with which the property was misappropriated — the element which differentiates larceny and wrongful appropriation. The law officer, in his instructions to the court members, carefully spelled out this difference. He correctly charged them that unless they determined that accused intended to deprive the owner of his property permanently, they could not return a finding of guilty of larceny but that they might convict accused of the included offense of wrongful appropriation — which requires the intent temporarily to deprive — if they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that accused entertained that intent. Thus, the case at bar is on all fours with United States v Dins-more, supra. It is clear that the law officer’s instructions were entirely correct with regard to the sole disputed issue as to accused’s guilt, and the questioned instruction did not relate to that issue or to the sentence. Accordingly, it is obvious, even if we were to assume arguendo that the instruction in question was improper, that it could not have operated to accused’s prejudice.

The decision of the board of review, therefore, is affirmed.

Chief Judge QUINN concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(concurring):

I concur in the affirmance of the decision of the board of review for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Dinsmore, 11 USCMA 28, 28 CMR 252, decided this date.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 18 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Nissan on December 7, 2010 FROM: Don Kopinski TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2010
- 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on December 7, 2010 b etween Nissan , DoT, and EPA staff. The following people attended : Nissan : Jeff Marsee, Takuya Ikeda, Asae Mi yake, Brian Bolton EPA: Tony

Fernandez, By

ron Bunker, Jeff Cherry , Cle Jackson, Don Kopinski DoT: Maurice Hicks, Ryan Harrington , Kevin Green, Angel Jackson
The discussion focused on requirements for Class 2b and 3 vehicles in the HD GHG/fuel con s umption rule, including credits for FFVs, full useful life and warranty requirements, and air conditioning leakage.
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


 


EL CAPITAN PRECIOUS METALS, INC.


 


AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO


2015 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


 


This Amendment No. 4 dated
October 31, 2016 (this “Amendment”) amends the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan of El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc.
(the “Company”) (the “Plan”). Except as otherwise explicitly set forth herein, all provisions
of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition shall have the meanings
set forth in the Plan.


 


WHEREAS, the Plan was adopted
by the Company pursuant to resolutions of the Board of Directors on October 8, 2015 and has been subsequently amended by Amendment
No. 1 dated December 15, 2015, Amendment No. 2 dated April 22, 2016 and Amendment No. 3 dated August 4, 2016;


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires
to further amend the Plan as hereinafter provided in order to increase the number of shares of Common Stock issuable under the
Plan from 50,000,000 to 75,000,000; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors approved the substance of this Amendment as of October 31, 2016 and, accordingly, the Company desires to amend the Plan
as hereinafter provided.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as
follows:


 


1.     Increase
in Number of Shares Subject to the Plan.  Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“3.1. Number
of Shares. Subject to adjustment in connection with a Capitalization Adjustment, the number of shares of Common Stock which
may be issued under the Plan shall not exceed 75,000,000 shares of Common Stock. Shares of Common Stock that are issued under the
Plan or are subject to outstanding Incentives will be applied to reduce the maximum number of shares of Common Stock remaining
available for issuance under the Plan. For purposes of clarification, the award of any Incentives payable only in cash will not
reduce the number of shares of Common Stock remaining and available to be issued under the Plan. Shares may be issued in connection
with a merger or acquisition as permitted by NASDAQ Listing Rule 5635(c) or, if applicable, NYSE Listed Company Manual Section
303A.08, AMEX Company Guide Section 711 or other applicable rule, and such issuance will not reduce the number of shares available
for issuance under the Plan”


 


2.     Effective
Date.  This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof.
1 

### Sutton, Lisa

From: Lorang, Phil Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:54 AM To: Frey, Nathan J. Cc: Schillo, Bruce; Balserak , Paul; Sutton, Lisa; Coda, Tom; Brachtl, Megan Subject: EPA response to Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563: SSM Petition Supplemental Proposal Attachments: SSM SIP SNPR_compar ver of 7-17_t o_ver of 8-27-2014_1133.docx; EO12866_SSM Petition_2060-AR68_Supplemental Proposal _FRN_8-27-2014_1133.docx; Summary of Responses to EO 12866 Review Comments.docx

Nathan

Attached please find (1) a new clean version incorporating edits to respond to the comments you conveyed on August 20, (2) a redline comparison to the version submitted origin ally, and (3) a 1-page summary of how the comments were
addressed.

As you know, we are under a settlement agreement deadline of September 5 for signature of this proposed action. We are therefore eager to receive confirmation that the edits ar e satisfactory, and to receive your instruction to upload the notice (with the appropriate he ader) for formal clearance.

Please call or email if there are any remaining questions or issue to be discussed.

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor Air Quality Policy Division
919-541-5463

From: Frey, Nathan J. [mailto:Na than_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:16 PM
To: Brachtl, Megan
Cc: Lorang, Phil; Schillo, Bruce; Bals erak, Paul; Sutton, Lisa; Coda, Tom Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 an d 13563: SSM Petition Supplemental Proposal

Attached please find a summary of interagency co mments under EO 12866 and 13563 with respect to the EPA supplemental proposed rule entitled, State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction; Supplemental Proposal to Address Affirmative Defense Provisions in States Included in the Petition for Rulemaking and in Additional States.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Nathan