alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3055 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3055

 To revive and extend until January 1, 1996, the suspension of duty on 
             Tfa Lys Pro in free base and tosyl salt forms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 1993

Mr. Valentine introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To revive and extend until January 1, 1996, the suspension of duty on 
             Tfa Lys Pro in free base and tosyl salt forms.

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

SECTION 1. REVIVAL AND EXTENSION OF DUTY SUSPENSION.

    Heading 9902.30.53 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting ``12/31/95''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 applies with 
respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, 
on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Application to Certain Entries.--Notwithstanding 
section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other 
provision of law, upon a request filed with the appropriate customs 
officer before the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, 
of goods described in heading 9902.30.53 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992, and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or withdrawal 
occurred on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1357

METASEBYA KASSA MEKONEN,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A77-894-838)

Submitted: January 19, 2007 Decided: February 12, 2007

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,

Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*We find that Mekonen has failed to demonstrate sufficient

grounds to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling. See Harris v.

Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Metasebya Kassa Mekonen, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We have

reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board

did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the

ground that it was untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

(2006) (establishing a ninety-day time limitation for filing a

motion to reopen); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992)

(setting forth standard of review).*

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

GUILLERMO VALLEJO-MORENO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50100 

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01252-W

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. 

Guillermo Vallejo-Moreno appeals from the sentence of twelve months and 

one day imposed upon revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Vallejo-Moreno’s counsel has filed a brief stating

that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel 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

OCT 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-50100 

record. We have provided Vallejo-Moreno the opportunity to file a pro se 

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been 

filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 99-20059 Summary Calendar

NANCY T. KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BOARD OF REGENTS, of Texas Southern University; ENOS CABELL, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Board of Regents of Texas Southern University; JAMES M. DOUGLAS, in His Official Capacity as President of Texas Southern University and Individually; JAMES GINN, Individually; JOANN HORTON, Individually,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-446)

June 21, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nancy T. King ("King") was employed by Texas Southern

University ("TSU") as a mathematics teacher under a series of oneyear contracts beginning with the 1991-92 academic year and ending2

with the 1995-96 academic year. Beginning in 1995, King applied

for appointment as an ass istant professor in the Mathematics

Department on tenure track. Her first application and subsequent

applications were denied. King filed her original complaint in

February 1997, against the Board of Regents of Texas Southern

University and various individual defendants in both their official

and individual capacities. King claimed violations of her right to

due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and her right to free

speech under the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed the

due process claim on summary judgment. The case was tried on the

First Amendment free speech claim to a jury. Based on the jury’s

answers and their verdict, the distr ict court entered a Final

Judgment that King take nothing by her suit. King moved for a new

trial which was denied and King now appeals to this Court.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district judge in her Memorandum and

Opinion filed under date of December 22, 1998, we are satisfied

that the district judge did not commit reversible error in her

rulings on King’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for

new trial. Accordingly, the Final Judgment herein is

AFFIRMED

.
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 18 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-186894) and Amendment No. 532 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.












/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


November 16, 2016
#### KEGEL & JOHNSON, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a Radio Station WGMW, et al., Appellants, v. KEN-SELL, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a Radio Station WIRK AM & FM, Appellee.

No. 72-1220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF AIRAMBULANCE BYAIRTREK, INC. FAADOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Proceeding) FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1003 RONNIE A. YODER CHIEFADMINISTRATIVELAWJUDGE
JOINT AGREED PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER Pursuant to Rule !3.217 (14 C.P.R. !3.217), and by Order ofChiefAdministrative Law Judge EstablishingProcedures served onJanuary !3, 2012, theparties, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submit the followingjoint agreed proposed procedural schedule: (a)
1. Stipulations

- Stipulations, by and betweenthe parties, shall be filed on or before June 15, 2012. ii. List ofwitnesses and a summary oftheirproposed testimony- a list of witnesses and a summary oftheirproposed testimony shall be exchanged
on orbefore May 15, 2012. (b) Exchanging exhibits and discovery

- Exchange ofexhibits to be introduced at the hearing; a list ofwitnesses that may be called at the hearing; and all other discovery shall be completedno later than April13, 2012.

### STATEMENT CONCERNING THE STATUS OF SETTLEMENT EFFORTS The parties will continue to discuss settlement as discovery continues. 

### PROPOSED HEARING SITE The parties proposethat a hearing shall take place in Washington, D.C. 

### PROPOSED HEARING DATE The parties propose a two-dayhearing on or afterJu !7, 2012. Dated: February 13, 2012

S. WINTON, ESQ. ATION LAW FIRM ne Research Court, Suite 450

, ockville, MD 20850 Tel: (30!) 294-8550 Fax: (30!) 294-2525 Greg · tionLawExperts.com 

### C ns Jar Respondent

STEPHEN W. BRICE, ESQ. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Office oftheRegional Counsel FAA Eastern Region, AEA-7 I Aviation Plaza, Room 561 Jamaica, NY !1434 Tel: 7!8 553-3268 Fax: 7!8 533-5699

2Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 ONE COPY GREGORY S. WINTON, Respondent's Counsel THE AVIATION LAW FIRM One Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 TEL: (301) 294-8550 FAX: (301) 294-2525 STEPHEN W. BRICE, ESQ., Complainant's Counsel FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Office ofthe Regional Counsel FAA Eastern Region, AEA-7 1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 Jamaica, NY 11434 Tel: 718 553-3268 Fax: 718 533-5699 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative LawJudge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, Room El2-320 1200New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202 366-2142 FAX: 202 366-7536

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,616
<SECURITIES>                                     8,677
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,070
<PP&E>                                           1,019
<DEPRECIATION>                                     195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,863
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,204
<SALES>                                         14,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,835
<CGS>                                            6,644
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,259
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    877
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (70)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       947
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
256 La. 887

#### Ralph ORTEGO and Dorothy McMillan Ortego v. Hollis PLUMBAR and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

No. 50880.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1970.

In re: Ralph Ortego and Dorothy McMillan Ortego applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 238 So.2d 376.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
EXHIBIT 10.36.3


                                  AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR
                   OFFICERS OF NORTHEAST UTILITIES SYSTEM COMPANIES


The first sentence of the definition of "Compensation" in Section II of the
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for Officers of Northeast Utilities
System Companies is hereby amended to read as follows, effective as of
January 1, 1996:

          "Compensation" shall have the same meaning as provided 
          in the Retirement Plan, but shall also include amounts 
          disregarded pursuant to Section 401(a)(17) of the Code, 
          amounts (included in Compensation as earned) receipt of 
          which is deferred by a Participant pursuant to a plan 
          or agreement that is not qualified under the Code, and, 
          for any period in question, awards under the EICP and 
          the Incentive Plan to the extent made with respect to 
          performance during such period, each such award to be 
          allocated on a pro rata basis to each of the calendar 
          months in the period to which it relates.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Maude Samuels, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

November 9, 1953.

*Elihu D. SarasoJm*for George E. Samuels, petitioner.

*Robert Port*for Hilda Samuels, objectant.

Bubenstein, S.

In this proceeding a daughter of the decedent opposes the grant of letters of administration to the petitioner, an only son, and requests that letters be issued to her, to which the other two daughters have consented. The objections are personal and not based on any of the grounds specified in section 94 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. The petitioner and the objectant are in the same class of priority, as children of the deceased, under subdivision 2 of section 118 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. The section specifically states that there shall be no preference on account of sex. *Matter of Brinckmann*(89 Misc. 41), cited by counsel for petitioner, was decided when the law gave preference to brothers over sisters. The other case cited by counsel, *Matter of Eggsware*(123 Misc. 548), stands for the proposition that where there is an apparent hostility between persons in the same class of priority for appointment and they have been unable to agree as to an appointment, as here, the Surrogate may not, by reason thereof, appoint a stranger, but will appoint the one requested by a majority of the distributees who represent the largest share of the estate. The general guide for the exercise of the court’s discretion, as stated in section 118, is that “ that person must be appointed, who will, in the judgment of the Surrogate, best manage the estate of the intestate.” And further, “If there *843are several persons equally entitled to administration, the surrogate *may*grant letters to one or more persons ” (emphasis supplied).

In view of the circumstances herein, and it appearing that the objectant is more conversant with the affairs of the decedent and is the choice of the two remaining distributees herein, the court, exercising its discretion in the best interests of the estate, directs that letters of administration issue to the objectant upon her qualifying according to law.

Proceed accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1199

DIANA M. CAMPITELLI, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus THOMAS L. OSBORNE; MARJORIE D. NESBITT, Administrator, Human Resources; E. KENNEDY, President, Kennedy Personnel Services; STEPHEN KENNEDY; GISELE M. MATHEWS, Assistant Attorney General, MDOT, Defendants - Appellees, and PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 2796-L) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: August 8, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Diana M. Campitelli, Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Diana M. Campitelli appeals district court’s order denying her motion for default judgment against several unserved parties in this civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Campitelli’s pending motions for stay orfor temporary restraining orders are denied. The motion for abeyance is denied and the motion to expedite this appeal is denied asmoot. We decline to order production of transcripts at the government’s expense and decline to issue a writ of mandamus. We find no grounds for the suspension or disbarment of Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr., or any of the members of his staff. Campitelli’s motion seeking suspension or disbarment is therefore denied. Appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted. We dispense withoral 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
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Miscellaneous
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.145 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030/763-3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Hold How-To Webinar on the New American FactFinder The U.S. Census Bureau will hold a webinar on the new data delivery tool, American FactFinder. During this comprehensive 30-minute tutorial, an expert on the use of American FactFinder will demonstrate how to locate, access, manipulate, map and download Summary File 1 for states and other previously released 2010 Census data. The webinar will consist of a simultaneous audio conference and online presentation. Reporters will be able to ask questions during the audio conference once the tutorial is complete.
    
  **Audio conference — access information**
    Toll free number: 888-982-4690
    Participant passcode: CENSUS**Note: Stay on the line until operator asks for the passcode. Do not key in passcode.** **Online presentation — access information
  Please login early, as some setup is required.**
  URL: <https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join/> 
  Conference/meeting number: PW7855267
  Conference/meeting passcode: CENSUS If closed captioning is required:
<http://livewrite.nccsite.com/view/cb0611>
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
# C_2013092EN.01000401.xml

| 28.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6875 — Tennet Offshore/Mitsubishi Corporation/Tennet Offshore 8)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 92/04

On 19 March 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6875. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6875. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---