alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Family Income, Expenditures, and Savings in 10 Cities

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Family Income, Expenditures, and Savings in 10 Cities : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1065*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1952,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4433,			accessed on September 12, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 28, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20748

Summary Calendar

 

PAULINE NGOLE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-2039

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pauline Ngole, a native and citizen of Nigeria, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 

Ngole argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) violated

her due process rights by determining that she did not meet the

requirements set forth Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA

1988) and, thus, not addressing her late appeal from the

immigration judge’s order.

The district court denied and dismissed Ngole’s petition,

holding that it lacked authority to review the BIA’s decision; 

that if it had even if had such authority, the scope of judicial
No. 04-20748

-2-

review was limited to circumstances not applicable in Ngole’s

case; and if the scope of such review were not limited, that

Ngole was not entitled to habeas relief because “Ngole’s

constitutional due process rights have not been infringed upon

due to ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Ngole argues and cites evidence to support her argument that

she met the Lozada requirements and that the BIA erred in its

determination that she did not. However, she has not briefed the

question of the district court’s authority to review the claims

raised in her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and has inadequately

briefed any due-process argument. Indeed, the brief contains no

real “argument” on this issue; rather, it is composed wholly of

conclusional allegations. Nor does it cite any relevant case

law. See FED. R. APP. P. 28 (a)(9); United States v. Tomblin, 46

F.3d 1369, 1376 n.13 (5th Cir. 1995) (brief must contain a legal

argument that indicates the basis for each contention). Thus,

any appealable issues have been abandoned and need not be

addressed by this court. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225

(5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.
### Geology and water resources in the French Prairie area, northern Willamette Valley, Oregon

By: Don Price

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1833

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Frank ROBERTS, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Dade County Zoning Department, and Walter F. Roggells, as the Chief Zoning Enforcement Officer of Metropolitan Dade County, or his successor, Appellees.

No. 77-137.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 31, 1978.

Daniel V. Ligman and Michael G. Martin, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Stuart L. Simón, County Atty. and Stanley B. Price, Asst. County Atty., for appel-lees.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and HUB-BART, JJ.

NATHAN, Judge.

In a suit for declaratory judgment the trial court did not err in entering a judgment on the pleadings which determined that it was the legislative intent of Section 33-20(e) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County1 to prohibit the storage, in a residential district, of a boat the length of which exceeds twenty-six (26) feet. Cf. *Rinker Materials Corporation v. City of North Miami,*286 So.2d 552 (Fla.1973); 30 Fla.Jur., Statutes, § 90.

Affirmed.

1

. Section 33-20(e) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County provides: *“Boat Storage.*Boats of less than twenty-six (26) feet in length, not more than ninety-six (96) inches in width and between thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches in height, may be stored in the RU, EU, AU and GU zoning districts subject to the following conditions . . . ”
#### Robert RACINO, Petitioner, v. Elmer SAXON, Respondent.

No. 2371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

May 2, 1969.

William A. Frieder of Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy, Miami, for petitioner.

Jon D. White and Joseph J. Reiter of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & D’Aiuto, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

McCAIN, Judge.

Petitioner, plaintiff below, seeks certiora-ri to review a trial court’s order striking *275his defense of res judicata to a counterclaim filed by respondent, defendant below.

The myriad of events precipitating this cause commenced with a motor vehicle collision between a truck and Volkswagen. Petitioner was driving the truck owned by Alterman Transport Lines. Respondent was operating the Volkswagen.

Respondent first became plaintiff in a separate suit for property damages and personal injuries against both Alterman and petitioner. They both counterclaimed. Respondent and petitioner then voluntarily dismissed their claims against each other without prejudice. Trial resulted in a jury verdict and judgment thereon for Alterman on respondent’s claim and for respondent on Alterman’s counterclaim.

The action sub judice was then separately filed with petitioner suing respondent for personal injuries. When respondent counterclaimed for his own injuries and damages the petitioner raised the defense of res judicata. Upon motion the court struck the defense and this petition for writ of certiorari followed.

In cases involving motor vehicle collisions and liability arising therefrom, we construe the rule to be that if a plaintiff sues a driver and loses on the merits, the owner may raise this in defense to a subsequent action against him. So too, if a plaintiff sues the owner and loses, the driver may raise this in defense to a later suit against him.1 No distinction is to be placed on the fact a party proceeds through a counterclaim rather than by an original action.

The respondent exercised his opportunity to fully litigate his issues with the owner of the truck and chose not to include the driver as a defendant. This places him squarely within the above rule when the driver now pursues his independent claim seeking recovery.2

The respondent does not question the use of certiorari for review of this cause, however we find it compatible with the principles enunciated for its purpose.3

For the foregoing reasons certiorari is granted and the order of the trial court striking the defense of res judicata is quashed with directions to reinstate the same.

CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.

1

. Hay v. Hildreth, Fla.App.1961, 125 So.2d 772.

2

. See Hay v. Hildreth, Fla.App.1961, 125 So.2d 772.

3

. Hinchee v. Fisher, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 351; Thoman v. Ashley, Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 332.
Fairchild International Corporation
                          595 Hornby Street, Suite 603
                   Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 1A4 Canada
                                  604-646-5614

                                January 15, 2002


Praxis Pharmaceuticals Inc.
#100 - 856 Homer Street
Vancouver, BC  V6B 2W5

Gentlemen:

This letter outlines our agreement pertaining to the Termination of License And
Research & Development Agreement Dated the 28th of February, 2001 (the
"Termination Agreement"). In the Termination Agreement, Fairchild and Praxis had
agreed that Praxis would retain those common shares of Fairchild issued to
Praxis under the terms of the original license agreement; and that Praxis would
pay to Fairchild 30% of Net Revenues from sales of the agents in the arthritis
and topical treatment of dermal wrinkles to a maximum of $250,000 over the first
three years of sales (the "Royalty Obligation").

Fairchild and Praxis now amend the Termination Agreement as follows:

1.       Praxis shall be entitled to retain the common shares of Fairchild;
         however, the remaining shares (the "Shares") shall be placed in a
         voluntary pooling arrangement under which an amount shall be released
         every three months to Praxis. That amount shall be 1% of the total
         number of Fairchild's outstanding shares.

2.       So long as Praxis pays Fairchild 66.6% of the proceeds from the sale of
         the Shares until US$ 175,000 has been paid, Fairchild shall deem that
         payment to be in full and complete satisfaction of the Royalty
         Obligation described above.

Please sign below to indicate your agreement and acceptance of this amendment to
the Termination Agreement.

FAIRCHILD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

By:      /S/ ROBERT GRACE
   -----------------------------------------
              Robert Grace, President

Agreed to and accepted this 15th day of January, 2002.
PRAXIS PHAMRACEUTICALS INC.

By:      /S/ ROBERT SMART
   -----------------------------------------
               Robert Smart, Secretary
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brad Hacker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |                             |  |                                                      
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Registrant               |  |  |  | Sierra Resource Group, Inc.
|                         |  |  | 
|Date: September 26, 2012 |  |  |  | By:                         |  | /s/ Barton R. Budman                                 
|                         |  |  |  |                             |  | Barton R. Budman                                     
|                         |  |  |  |                             |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49242-49243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25075]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting; Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 
10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 23, 1997, to consider the following 
matters:
    Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is 
anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a 
member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the 
discussion agenda.
    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings.
    Reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the 
Board of Directors.
    Discussion Agenda: Memorandum and resolution re: Part 303--

[[Page 49243]]

Applications, Requests, Submittals, Delegations of Authority, and 
Notices Required To Be Filed by Statute or Regulation.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign 
language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees 
needing such assistance should call (202) 416-2449 (Voice); (202) 416-
2004 (TTY), to make necessary arrangements.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-6757.

    Dated: September 16, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25075 Filed 9-17-97; 11:58 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24873]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-428-011]


Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 15, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 10, 1997, Tuscarora Gas Transmission 
Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective 
August 26, 1997:

First Revised Sheet No. 84
Sub First Revised Sheet No. 85

    Tuscarora asserts that the purpose of this filing is to clarify 
that the maximum term an Existing Shipper can be required to match 
under the right-of-first refusal provision is five years.
    Tuscarora states that copies of this filing were mailed to all 
customers of Tuscarora, interested state regulatory agencies and the 
service list in Docket No. RP97-428-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NW., 
Washington DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24873 Filed 9-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

LOG OF MEETING

SUBJECT: ASTM F15.21 Soft Infant and Toddler Carriers

DATE OF MEETING: September 26, 2013

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: vja

DATE OF LOG ENTRY: 1/16/13

LOCATION: ASTM HQ, West Conshohocken, P A

CPSC ATTENDEE(S): Patty Edwards, Vince Amodeo, Jonathan Midgett, Suad

Wanna

- Nakamura, Hope Nestaruk

NON

- CPSC ATTENDEE(S): Various

SUMMARY OF MEETING: The m eeting was called to order.

The meeting agenda was approved.

The previous meeting minutes were approved.

Results of recent F15 (13

- 07) ballot items were r eviewed.

Ballot closed 9/22/13.

Balloted items proposed clarifications to:

1. Instructional information text height.

2. Fastener load testing strap slip requirements.

3. Fastener load testing exempted fasteners.

No negatives were received.Ballot was appro ved.

New revision to be published as ASTM F2236

- 13a.

No new hazard patterns were observed in review of new incidents.

A task group was formed to review the need to further delineate between

products that could be considered soft carriers or sling type prod ucts.

A discussion ensued as to whether certain fasteners that are used to adjust head

support are considered exempt from fastener load testing. The subcommittee

determined that they are not load bearing and should be exempt.

As a result of discussion, th e subcommittee chair agreed to prepare a new ballot

to add the term "head adjustment fasteners" to the list of fasteners exempt from

load testing. The proposed change would be sent to ballot asap.

Future meeting schedule for week of April 2014.

Meeting wa s adjourned.
#### Bonnie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2481.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 15, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Paul Morris, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Steven R. Jacob, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Bernhardt v. State,*288 So.2d 490 (Fla.1974); *Brill v. State,*159 Fla. 682, 32 So.2d 607 (1947); *Randolph v. State,*292 So.2d 374 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); *Singletary v. State,*290 So.2d 116 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); *Franklin v. State,*226 So.2d 461 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); and *McNeely v. State,*186 So.2d 520 (Fla.2d DCA 1966).
# I am DLA

/ Published Dec. 25, 2018
Fort Belvoir, VA, 
                Latasha McGee                            190101-D-YE683-127                            Latasha McGee            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Courtesy PhotoVIRIN: 190101-D-YE683-127**My name is:**Latasha McGee**I am:**A resolution and transportation specialist for DLA Energy Pacific at Hawaii.**Describe your job in a sentence:**I manage fuel inventory and processing for 10 defense fuel support points; oversee processing for 33 fuel accounts distributed across the Hawaiian islands; and coordinate and schedule fuel deliveries to four military installations on Oahu.**How long have you worked at DLA?**I began working at DLA in November 2017.**What is your favorite thing about working for DLA?**It’s evident that serving the warfighter is the first priority. The commitment I see from my co-workers is astounding and admirable. Working at DLA has provided a feeling that my work ethic, diligence and commitment to the warfighter is not unnoticed and is greatly appreciated.**What are your best memories of working here?**At my predecessor’s going-away luncheon, he fought back tears as he spoke. I thought, “This must be a really good place to work if he’s crying during his going-away speech.”**How do you make a difference?**Accountability! My job supports the warfighter by ensuring the fuel needed to support their missions and exercises is well accounted for. We ensure that no negligence, fraud or theft is being done against the government. Fuel is essential to the warfighter in all modes of transportation, during wartime and peace.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-31468 of AirNet Communications Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated
March 27, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph related to substantial doubt about the Company's ability
to continue as a going concern), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
AirNet Communications Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Orlando, Florida
April 1, 2002.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>   0000943548
<NAME>  QUEEN SAND RESOURCES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      11,881,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,643,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,524,000
<PP&E>                                      92,525,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             119,193,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,535,000
<BONDS>                                    143,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     96,000
<COMMON>                                       135,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,112,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               119,193,000
<SALES>                                      3,967,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,100,000
<CGS>                                        1,372,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,561,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,928,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (1,130,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,058,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)


</TABLE>