alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## 2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-17-2008 

# I n Re: E mmett N el son
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3820

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" I n Re: E mme tt N e l s on " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 350. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/350

## 1 

## HLD-161 (September 2008) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 08-3820
IN RE: EMMETT NELSON, Petitioner

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Related to D.C. Civil No. 3:07-cv-00071)
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 30, 2008 Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge , WEIS AND GARTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 17, 2008)

OPINION

PER CURIAM. On March 27, 2007, Petitioner Emmett Nelson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, petitioned the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the computation of his federal sentence. The District Judge referred the petition to a Magistrate Judge. On September 5, 2008, Nelson petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus, requesting an order compelling the District Court to act

## 2 

## upon his habeas petition. On September 11, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending denial of Nelson’s habeas petition. On September 29, 2008, the District Court adopted the Report and denied Nelson’s petition. Given that Nelson has now received the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition – a ruling on his habeas petition – we will deny his mandamus petition, along with his motion for appointment of counsel, as
moot.
#### BUSH HOG, INC., Appellant, v. Robert Allen SAULS, et al., Appellees.

No. 69-690.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 16, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
1

Nesky, Anthony

From: Craig Wall <cwall@uraniumenergy.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 11:36 AM

To: Nesky, Anthony

Subject: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788 40 CFR 192

Tony,

On behalf of Uranium Energy Corp., I would like to request an extension to the 90 day comment period

regarding 40 CFR 192 draft rules.  These rules were drafted without any participation from industry members

so the industry needs additional time to review and respond.  I would also like to request a public hearing in

either Austin or Corpus Christi, Texas where ISR mining is predominately practiced.

Thanks,

Craig Wall, V.P. EH&S 

Uranium Energy Corp. 

361-888-8235 Office 

361-816-0480 Cell
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23741]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Division of Research Grants; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Division of Research Grants Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological Sciences.
    Date: October 5, 1997.
    Time: 3:00 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Bethesda, MD.
    Contact Person: Dr. Sooja Kim, Scientific Review Administrator, 
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4120, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 
435-1780.

    Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.
    Date: October 22-24, 1997.
    Time: 6:00 p.m.
    Place: Omni Dallas Hotel-Park West, Dallas, TX.
    Contact Person: Dr. Bill Bunnag, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5215, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1177.

    Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.
    Date: October 27-28, 1997.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Chevy Chase, MD.
    Contact Person: Dr. Dharam Dhindsa, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5206, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1174.

    Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.
    Date: October 29, 1997.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Chevy Chase, MD.
    Contact Person: Dr. Dharam Dhindsa, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 520-6, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1174.

    Name of SEP: Clinical Sciences.
    Date: December 10, 1997.
    Time: 7:00 a.m.
    Place: Doubletree Hotel, Rockville, MD.
    Contact Person: Dr. Gertrude McFarland, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4110, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1784.
    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: September 2, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-23741 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SOURCE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT COMPANY

Subsidiary                                        Incorporated in:
-----------                                       ----------------

Source-Yeager Industries, Incorporated            Delaware
Source-U.S. Marketing Services, Incorporated      Delaware
Source-MYCO, Incorporated                         Delaware
Source-Chestnut Display Systems, Incorporated     Delaware
PC-Sub, Incorporated                              Missouri
K-Sub, Incorporated                               Missouri
L-Sub, Incorporated                               Missouri
Magazine Marketing, Incorporated                  Ohio
Readers Choice, Incorporated                      Ohio
Mike Kessler & Associates, Incorporated           New Jersey
The Source-Canada Corporation                     Ontario, Canada
#### HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY v. Frank HARDESTY et al.

No. 7871.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Feb. 2, 1970.

James E. Moore, Ben W. Lightfoot, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

James B. Thompson, III, Baton Rouge, for appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, REID and BLANCHE, JJ.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This is a suit filed by Hanover Insurance Company against Frank Hardesty and others wherein petitioner seeks damages as a result of a three car collision.

This matter was one of four consolidated cases which were tried together by the Lower Court after which the Lower Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner and against defendant in the sum of $933.-66.

For the reasons assigned in our decree this day handed down in suit entitled Jones, et ux versus Lungaro, et al., La.App., 231 So.2d 60 on the docket of this Court, the judgment of the Lower Court will be reversed and there will be judgment herein in favor of the defendants and against petitioner dismissing petitioner’s action at petitioner’s cost.

Judgment reversed.
Exhibit 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Jagged
Peak, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 25, 2009, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                          
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2009
|                       | 
|By:                    |  | /s/    Andrew J. Norstrud
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1509 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1509

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to add non-human primates to 
             the definition of prohibited wildlife species.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Captive Primate Safety Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF NON-HUMAN PRIMATES TO THE DEFINITION OF PROHIBITED 
              WILDLIFE SPECIES.

    Section 2(g) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 
3371(g)) is amended by inserting ``or any non-human primate'' before 
the period at the end.

            Passed the Senate July 11, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1509

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to add non-human primates to 
             the definition of prohibited wildlife species.
```
| Company      Name                                     |   |                  |   | Jurisdiction      of Organization |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Source      Interlink Media, LLC                      |   | Delaware              |
| Alliance      Entertainment, LLC                      |   | Delaware              |
| Source      Home Entertainment, Inc.             |   | Delaware              |
| Source      Interlink Magazines, LLC                  |   | Delaware              |
| Source      Interlink Distribution, LLC.              |   | Delaware              |
| Source-Chestnut      Display Systems, Inc.       |   | Delaware              |
| Source-Yeager      Industries, Inc.              |   | Delaware              |
| Source  Fixture      Company                |   | Delaware              |
| RDS      Logistics, LLC.                              |   | Delaware              |
| Source      Interlink International, Inc.        |   | Delaware              |
| Source      Interlink Retail Services, LLC            |   | Delaware              |
| Motor      Trend Auto Shows, Inc.                     |   | Delaware              |
| Automotive.com,      Inc.                             |   | Delaware              |
| The      Source-Canada Corp.                          |   | Ontario               |
| International      Periodical Distributors, Inc. |   | Nevada                |
| David      E. Young, Inc.                        |   | New      York         |
| Source      Interlink Canada, Inc.               |   | British      Columbia |
| Source-SCN      Services, LLC.                        |   | Delaware              |
| Source      Mid-Atlantic News, LLC.                   |   | Delaware              |
| AEC      Direct, Inc.                            |   | Delaware              |
| Directtou, Inc.                                  |   | Delaware              |
| Enthusiast      Media Subscription Company, Inc.      |   | Delaware              |
| The      Virtual Flyshop, Inc.                        |   | Delaware              |
| Go      Lo Entertainment, Inc.                        |   | Delaware              |
| Canoe      & Kayak, Inc.                          |   | Delaware              |
| Source      Interlink Manufacturing, LLC              |   | Delaware              |
| The      Interlink Companies, Inc.                    |   | Delaware              |
### NUMBER 13

- 11

- 00 783

- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC. , A ppellant ,
v. BISH ENTERPRISES, LLC , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief J ustice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C

- 824

- 11

- A . Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have settled all
claims . Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant = s unopposed motio n to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant = s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant = s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed th e 31st day of May , 20 12

.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6485
CHARLES GENE ROGERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DON G. WOOD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-hc-02208-D) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: July 14, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Charles Gene Rogers, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and dismissing it as unauthorized and successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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. Miller-El 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 Rogers 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
EXHIBIT 11
                         The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
               Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share
                      (in millions, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                12-weeks Ended             24-weeks Ended
                                                            6/10/00      6/12/99       6/10/00       6/12/99
                                                            -------      -------       -------       -------
Number of shares on which basic earnings per share is based:
<S>                                                             <C>         <C>            <C>            <C>
  Average outstanding during period................             148         142            148            98
  Add - Incremental shares under stock
    compensation plans.............................               -           -              -             -
                                                             ------      ------         ------        ------

Number of shares in which diluted
  earnings per share is based......................             148         142            148            98

Net earnings applicable to common
   shareholders (millions).........................           $  85       $  20          $ 102         $  17

Net earnings on which diluted earnings
   per share is based (millions)...................           $  85       $  20          $ 102         $  17

Basic earnings per share...........................           $0.58       $0.14          $0.69         $0.18

Diluted earnings per share.........................           $0.58       $0.14          $0.69         $0.18

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 13**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Progen Pharmaceuticals Limited, a company organized under the laws of the State of Queensland, Australia (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2010 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Progen Pharmaceuticals Limited and will be retained by Progen Pharmaceuticals Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated:    December 22, 2010 | /s/ Sue MacLeman                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                            | Chief Executive Officer                          |
|                                            |                                             |
| Dated:    December 22, 2010 | /s/ Paul G.E.J Dixon                             |
|                                            | General Manager of Finance and Company Secretary |

 

----
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.1




FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
    
This Fourth Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement by and between Sprint Nextel Corporation, now known as Sprint Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), and Joseph J. Euteneuer made and entered into as of December 20, 2010 and amended on November 20, 2012, November 11, 2013, and November 14, 2014 (the “Agreement”), is made and entered into November 6, 2015 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).  Certain capitalized term shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement, and restricted stock unit award agreements for grants on July 24, 2013, May 20, 2014, and May 20, 2015 (the “RSU Award Agreements”), to provide that, for purposes of calculation of pro rata payouts under short-term incentive plan and the awards under the RSU Award Agreements, Mr. Euteneuer will be treated as if his last day of employment with the Company was October 31, 2015, rather than his actual last day which will be December 9, 2015.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby amend the Agreement as of the Amendment Effective Date as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 7 shall be modified to cease vacation accruals under the Company’s Paid Time Off policy effective October 31, 2015. 




		
	2.
	Section 9(b)(ii)(A) shall be modified by providing for pro rata payment of the Bonus Award for the portion of the current fiscal year prior to November 1, 2015, rather than the date of termination of his employment as currently is provided in his Agreement;




		
	3.
	The pro rata portion of the amounts accelerated under the RSU Award Agreements will be calculated as if October 31, 2015 was the date of termination of Mr. Euteneuer’s employment.    




In all other respects, the terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement and the RSU Award Agreements shall remain the same.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by an officer pursuant to the authority of its Board, and the Executive has executed this Amendment, effective as of the day and year first written above.


	
		
	SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.






/s/ Sandra J. Price____________
By:  Sandra J. Price
	EXECUTIVE






/s/ Joseph J. Euteneuer_______
Joseph J. Euteneuer
### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

(Adopted May 2, 2008 ) (PAR 2449 April 2014 )

Proposed Amended Rule 2449

. Control of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Off

- Road Diesel Vehicles

The provisions of Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR ), Section 2449.3, in effect June 15, 2008 , were adopted in full by the South Coast Air Quality Management District on May 2 , 2008 through the “opt

- in” provision provided in the regulation and were made part of the Rules and Regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District.

Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Title 13 of the CCR, Section 2449.3 was amended in December 14, 2011 by the California Air Resources Board and renumbered to section 2449.2. Effective December 14, 2011 Section 2449.2 shall apply to the owner of any o ff

- road diesel vehicle as described.

The provisions of this Regulation apply to the owner of any off

- road diesel vehicle as described
in Section 2449. 3 2 (b) operating in the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Upon the
District ’s issuance of a solicitation for applications for funding, fleet owners subject to Section
2449. 3 2 shall submit applications for funding, in accordance with the Rule 2449 Administrative Guidelines developed to implement Section 2449. 3 2

.

Title 13, Chapter 9 Motor Vehicles

– Off

- Road Vehicles and Engines Pollution Control Devices

Section 2449.3 Surplus Off

- Road Opt

- In for NOx (SOON) Program

(13 CCR 2449.3, June 15, 2008 ) ( SC AQMD Adopted May 2, 2008 )

Section 2449.2 Surplus Off

- Road Opt

- In for NOx (SOON) Program

(13 CCR 2449.2, December 14, 2011) ( SC AQMD Amended xxx )

2449

– 1