alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dorothy Evans, a widow, v. Carl Green, Julia Green and Patrician Hotel Company.

180 So. 753.

Division A.

Opinion Filed April 25, 1938.

*470*E. F. P. Brigham, Murrell & Malone*and *Whitfield & Whitfield,*for Appellant;

*Marion E. Sibley*and *Vincent C. Giblin,*for Appellees.

Peg Curiam.

Pursuant to application of Appellant, as complainant, an order was entered March 25, 1938, appointing a receiver for Appellee, Patrician Hotel Company. On March 31, 1938, a second order was entered in the cause confirming the appointment of said receiver. We are confronted here with separate appeals from both orders, a motion to consolidate them having been entered and hereby granted.

The appeals are taken by the complainant who applied for and secured the appointment of the receiver. The records have been lodged in this Court, briefs have been filed, and the merits of the cause argued on application for a supersedeas, so the whole matter is before us for final adjudication.

The rule is generally recognized that a litigant cannot appeal from a decree in his favor. Witt and Witt v. Baars, Trading as Baars & Co., 36 Fla. 119, 18 So. 330, but it would be going far to hold that under our .system of jurisprudence, conditions would never arise in which rules of general application should not be modified when the justice of the cause resulting from changed conditions requires.

It is contended here that the property in receivership is being administered in the interest of the receiver’s representative, auditors, attorneys, and a retinue of other em*471ployees, rather than in the interest of those claiming the estate being administered. It is not charged that the Court’s receiver is not fair and impartial and in all other respects qualified.

A receivership is not operated in the interest of those appointed for that purpose. They are merely incidents; it is conducted for the benefit of those who own the trust property and they are the ones entitled to the proceeds of it. Trust property may be more easily dissipated by unwise administration than through the practice of the technique of the bandit but regardless of the manner in which done, the result is little different to the *cestui que*trust.

The decrees appealed from are accordingly affirmed, but with leave of the Chancellor to amend so as to preserve the trust property and insure its economical administration.

It is so ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Chapman, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Brown, J., concurs in the conclusion.
Exhibit 10.20



 Exhibit 10.20 

CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc. 

Amended and Restated 

Non-Employee Directors Compensation Program 

In January, 2015 our Board adopted an Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Compensation Program intended to compensate our non-employee directors with a
combination of cash and equity. Each non-employee director will receive an annual base cash retainer of $35,000 for such service. The chairman of our board of directors will receive an additional annual base cash retainer of $20,000 for this
service. In addition, we intend to compensate the members of our board of directors for service on our committees as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	The chairperson of our audit committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $17,500 for this service, and each of the other members of the audit committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $9,000.


  

	 	•	 	The chairperson of our compensation committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $10,000 for such service, and each of the other members of the compensation committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $6,000.


  

	 	•	 	The chairperson of our nominating and corporate governance committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $8,750 for this service, and each of the other members of the nominating and corporate governance committee
will receive an annual cash retainer of $4,000. 

 Cash payments described above shall be paid either quarterly or semi-annually at the
discretion of the board member. Further, at about the time of our annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director will receive an additional equity award of an option to purchase 9,000 shares of our common stock. If a new board member
joins our board of directors, the director will receive an initial stock option to purchase 18,000 shares of our common stock. Annual option grants and option grants to new board members will be subject to vesting as determined by our Board or
Compensation Committee on the date of grant.
boT'O^^i^^f'C^^i' 

Joe J. Frenzel. C.C.I.M. 

Certified CommBrcial 

Investment Brol<er 

Sandi Frenzel, G.R.I., C.R.S. 

Duane Schwab, G.R.I., C.R.S. 

Ninetta Wandler, G.R.I., C.R.S., A.B.R. 

Phyllis Sackman, G.R.I. 

Jackie Miller, G.R.I. 

LaDonna Kubik 

Everett Real Estate, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1036, 669 12th Street West 

Dickinson, ND 58601 

Teleptione: (701) 225-8183 

BUYLAN D Fax: (701)225-0081 

www.everettrealestateinc.com 

Commercial and 

Investment Property 

Farm and Ranch Property 

Residential Property 

Property Management 

Oil and Gas Properties 

Established 1906 

October 26, 2010 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis X-53 

400 7* Street SW 

Washington, B.C. 20590 

;-o 

> 

en CO 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

I am writing in support of the Great Lakes Airlines bid for Essential Air Service at the Dickinson 

Theodore Roosevelt Regional Airport in Dickinson, North Dakota. 

As a REALTOR®, I am sometimes the first contact for newcomers to Dickinson. While my 

clients may not directly use air service regularly, their employers very often do. The success of 

my business is related to the vitality of our region, and that vitality depends on the ability of 

business people to access Dickinson conveniently, easily, and, in some cases, quickly. 

Years ago, the norm was for people to fly into other airports and then drive to Dickinson. That is 

no longer the case, as evidenced by the passenger ntimbers at our airport. I know that one 

advantage for businesses is being able to fly into the same time zone in which their companies 

are operating, which eliminates confusion regarding meeting times, workday schedules, etc. 

Another advantage, of course, is that Dickinson has been able to offer more flights at more 

convenient times, allowing companies to have then: employees m Dickinson in the morning and 

back at corporate headquarters by evening. All of this makes a business more efficient, which 

often translates into malcing a business more profitable, one of the main considerations when 

choosing a location. 

I would, therefore, urge you to award the EAS bid to Great Lines Airlines, as submitted. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Jackie Miller 

"/?e«(//ts" Worldwide
* 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. 01-30397 Conference Calendar

DELVIN CRAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., Defendant-Appellee.

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

USDC No. 00-CV-3776-E

- - - - - - - - - - October 26, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Delvin Crain, Louisiana prisoner # 91405, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action as time-barred. By moving for IFP status, Crain is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is frivolous and is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).No. 01-30397 -2- Crain has failed to present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is frivolous is upheld. Crain’s request for IFP status is DENIED, his motion entitled “writ of certiorari” is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Crain is warned that if he accumulates one more “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of LitigationTrustee Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofInformation Resources, Inc. Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge:

 

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)         The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ JOSEPH P. DURRETT |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Joseph P. Durrett     |
| Litigation Trustee    |
| November 2, 2005 |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of § 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

1

----
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Beales and Senior Judge Willis 

STEPHEN OSTRANDER t/a 

 HARD TIME LOGGING 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record No. 0481-06-3 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 18, 2006 

FREDDIE FULLER, JR. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Gerald L. Gray; Brian K. Patton; Gerald Gray Law Firm, A 

Professional Corporation, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Kerry S. Hay; Lee & Phipps, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Stephen Ostrander t/a Hard Time Logging (employer) appeals a decision of the Workers’ 

Compensation Commission finding that (1) Freddie Fuller, Jr. proved he sustained an injury by 

accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on September 20, 2004; and 

(2) employer had two or more employees regularly in service, and thus was an “employer” 

subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the commission in its final opinion. See Fuller v. Stephen Ostrander t/a Hard Time Logging, 

VWC File No. 221-48-20 (Jan. 24, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily 

affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 316]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3452]]

Public Law 111-316
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To improve certain administrative operations of the Office of the 
   Architect of the Capitol, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 
                         2010 -  [H.R. 6399]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONSOLIDATION OF STAFF POSITIONS.

    (a) Consolidation.--Section 108 of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1849) is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 108.  The Architect of the Capitol may fix the rate of basic 
pay for not more than 32 positions at a rate not to exceed the highest 
total rate of pay for the Senior Executive Service under subchapter VIII 
of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, for the locality 
involved.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1203(e) of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 2003 (2 U.S.C. 1805(e)) is amended by striking 
paragraph (3).
    (c) Effective <<NOTE: 2 USC 1805 note.>> Date.--The amendments made 
by this section shall apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS TO ACQUIRE BUILDING.

    (a) Availability.--The amounts described in subsection (b) shall be 
available to the Architect of the Capitol for the acquisition (through 
purchase, lease, transfer from another Federal entity, or otherwise) of 
real property for the use of the Capitol Police.
    (b) Amounts Described.--The amounts described in this subsection are 
amounts appropriated to, and remaining available for obligation by, the 
Architect of the Capitol under the heading ``Architect of the Capitol, 
Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds'' or under the heading ``Architect 
of the Capitol, Capitol Police

[[Page 124 STAT. 3453]]

Buildings, Grounds and Security'' in any Act making appropriations for 
the legislative branch for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

    Approved December 18, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6399:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Nov. 16, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 4, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
BRAD B. HAYNES                                                   9005 Burton Way
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT                        Los Angeles, California 90048
                                                              Tel (310) 273-7417
                                                              Fax (310) 285-0865



                           CONSENT OF BRAD B. HAYNES
                    INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT



I consent to the incorporation by reference and use in the Annual Report on Form
10-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Integrated Communication
Networks, Inc. for the year ended December 31,1999, of my financial statements
of PhoneXchange, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998, report dated April
2, 1999, insofar as such report relates to the financial statements and
schedules of PhoneXchange, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.



/s/ Brad B. Haynes
Certified Public Accountant
Los Angeles, CA

Date: March 29, 2000
-  Home 
- 

# 

## Categories

file repo st tag

File Repository
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CO-922-07-1310-FI; COC64228] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC64228 from Tatonka Oil and Gas Company, LLC for lands in Moffat County, Colorado. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Milada Krasilinec, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 303.239.3767. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $20.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 18                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC64228 effective December 1, 2006, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                 

Dated: March 15, 2007. 

Milada Krasilinec, 

Land Law Examiner.

[FR Doc. E7-5244 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN BERTRAND CLOSE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 21

- 35077

D.C. No. 6:19

- cv

- 00557

- MK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 8, 2023 * *

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN

, and SILVERMAN

, Circuit Judge s

.

Steven Close appeals from the district court’s denial of fees under the Equal

Access to Justice Act (EAJA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review a district court’s denial of EAJA attorneys’ fees for an abuse of

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 14 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

discretion. See Meier v. Colvin , 727 F.3d 867, 869 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that t he

government’s litigation position and pre

- litigation conduct were substantially

justified

. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(b )

, an ALJ is not required to make express

findings or to otherwise explain its consideration of a claimant’s borderline age. See

Lockwood v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin. , 616 F.3d 1068, 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2010).

To the extent that internal agency interpreta tions of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(b) require

more, these interpretations are not binding. See id. at 1072

– 73; Moore v. Apfel , 216

F.3d 864, 869 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) . Therefore, the government’s position wa s

substantially justified. See Pierce v. Underwood

, 487 U.S. 552, 56 6 n.2 (1988)

(holding that substantial justification is met where “a reasonable person could think

[the government’s position] correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and

fact”).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2007290EN.01000801.xml

| 4.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/8

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 138th meeting on 13 March 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.3975 — Cargill/Degussa

(2007/C 290/07)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of the Merger Regulation.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension as defined in Article 1 of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension as defined in Article 1 of the Merger Regulation.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant product markets contained in the Draft Decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant product markets contained in the Draft Decision.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant geographic markets contained in the Draft Decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant geographic markets contained in the Draft Decision.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee shares the Commission's view that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission's view that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the operation should be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the operation should be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---