alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         231,202
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    333,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               887,084
<PP&E>                                         502,408
<DEPRECIATION>                                 361,097
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,028,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          895,091
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       159,518
<OTHER-SE>                                   (329,766)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,028,395
<SALES>                                        104,483
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               621,868
<CGS>                                          218,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,494,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,102,359)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,102,359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,102,359)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BIAO ZHENG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71899

Agency No. A072-337-305

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Biao Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

FILED

MAR 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71899

a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and

we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng’s motion to reopen to

rescind his deportation order because the hearing notice was sent by certified mail

to the address last provided by Zheng and he failed to timely inform the

immigration court of his address change, see Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 431 (9th

Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (hearing notice sent by certified mail to alien’s last known

address is sufficient notice).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng’s motion to reopen as

untimely because he filed it more than 10 years after the final deportation order,

see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he failed to demonstrate changed country

conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing

motions to reopen, or that he warranted equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see

8 C.F.R. § 1003.22(b)(4)(i); He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (changed personal circumstances

insufficient to support an untimely motion to reopen); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d

889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner

acts with due diligence”).
3 09-71899

We lack jurisdiction to review Zheng’s ineffective assistance of counsel

claim because he failed to exhaust it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678

(9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 31,903 4 JONATHAN GALLEGOS, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 William C. Birdsall, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Chief Public Defender 12 J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assi stant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VIGIL, Judge. 17 Gallegos appeals an order denying his motion to withdraw his plea. In our 18 notice of proposed summary disposition, weproposed to dismiss Gallegos’s appeal, 192 since Gallegos’s notice of appeal was f iled late. Gallegos has filed a memorandum 1 in opposition, which we haveduly considered. As we are not persuaded by his 2 arguments, we dismiss this appeal for th e reasons stated in our notice of proposed 3 summary disposition. To the degree that Gallegos may have a claim of ineffective 4 assistance of counsel based on either (1) his new counsel’s failure to timely file the 5 notice of appeal or (2) his prior counsel’s representation of him in entering the plea, 6 our dismissal of this appeal does not prevent him from seeking to present evidence in 7 support of those arguments in a post-conviction proceeding. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

_______________________________ 10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12

_________________________________ 13 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 14

_________________________________ 15 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 16
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Finance and Accounting Service Providing payment services for the U.S. Department of Defense

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Military Member		 
-  Retired Military & Annuitant		 
-  Civilian Employee		 
-  Contractor & Vendor		 

HomePressroomdfasleadershipKathy_Hendrickson

                        - Agency Overview
                        - DFAS Leadership
                        - Media Contacts
                        - Graphics

#### **Kathy Hendrickson, DFAS Director of Human Resources**

## 

Kathy Hendrickson serves as the Director for Human Resources (HR) delivering strategy, policy, and operations support to DFAS and other Department of Defense (D0D) components as a DoD HR regional service provider.  Before assuming this position, Ms. Hendrickson served as Deputy HR Director for DFAS and in a wide range of HR leadership roles prior to and since the establishment of DFAS.  Before joining DFAS, she served in a variety of HR capacities with USMEPCOM, U.S. Army Europe, Fort Lee, Virginia, and at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California.  Ms. Hendrickson contributes to a variety of DoD-level forums, including membership on the Civilian Personnel Policy Council. 

Ms. Hendrickson holds undergraduate and graduate degrees, a greenbelt certification, and certification as a Senior Professional in Human Resources.  She is also a graduate of the Federal Executive Institute’s Leadership for a Democratic Society and the Harvard Senior Executive Fellows Program.  

Updated  Oct. 10, 2017

### Stay Connected

Department of Defense     Department of Veterans Affairs     Military Employment Verification     Warrior Care Website     Defense Contract Mgmt Agency  DoD Forms     Department of State     Civilian Personnel Mgmt Service     DTS Travel Center     System for Award Mgmt (SAM)    Congressional/LegislationPersonnel Force Innovation     Freedom of Information Act     DFAS Hotline   Contact Us     Accessibility / Section 508    EEO / No Fear Act  

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

d0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

137574 & (20) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137574 

 COA: 286152 

Livingston CC: 93-007419-FH 

TAD SPENCER DEWULF, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of March 23, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the September 8, 

2008 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People 

v Jackson (Docket No. 135888). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on 

July 10, 2009, 483 Mich 271 (2009), the application is again considered and, pursuant to 

MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Livingston 

Circuit Court’s Order to Remit Prisoner Funds for Fines, Costs, and Assessments, entered 

on November 18, 2005, which assessed the defendant $475 in unspecified fees or costs. 

The circuit court failed to cite any authority, and we are not aware of any, that permitted 

it to order an assessment of unidentified costs and/or fees twelve years after the defendant 

was sentenced and without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. In all other 

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is 

DENIED.
Opinion issued April 18, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00263-CV

———————————

IN RE JOSEPH R. WILLIE, II, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Joseph R. Willie, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

challenging the trial court’s March 27, 2013 order denying his no-evidence 

summary-judgment motion.

1

 See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i). 

 1 The underlying case is Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Willie, No. 2007-

69255, in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Lena 

Levario presiding via special appointment. 
2

Applicable Law

The denial of a no-evidence summary-judgment motion is no more 

reviewable by appeal or mandamus than the denial of a matter-of-law summaryjudgment motion. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a cmt. The denial of a no-evidence 

summary-judgment motion should be treated the same as the denial of a summaryjudgment motion made under rule 166a(c). In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732, 744 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2004, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction 

to review the trial court’s denial of Willie’s no-evidence summary-judgment 

motion. 

Conclusion

We deny the petition and all pending motions.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
Vacuum Insulation

Long Term Test Dat

• The plot on the following page shows th

measured thermal conductivity of Therm

“Film 1” product based on seven years o

• The additional pages illustrate the impro

performance of ThermoCor’s current “F

product, using a “proposed industry stanaccelerated life test” comparison of bot

• It should be noted that application studi

done encapsulating VIP’s in urethane sid

indicating as much as a 50% improveme

characteristics. (i.e. retention of 75‐80% 
VIP Product Performance Ove
Vacuum Insulation Acceler

Test

• Accelerates Ten Years Of Room Te

Aging Into A 37‐Day Test Time

• Procedure:

1. Measure Thermal Conductivity Pe

2. Place In Environmental Chamber T

Temperature And Humidity For Ni

3. Measure Thermal Conductivity Pe

4. Repeat Steps 2 & 3 Three More Tim
Temperature & Humidity 

• One Cycle Is 11.5 Hours

• Repeat Cycle For Nine‐Day Test Pe
ThermoCor© VIP Res

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%120%

1234

Normalized  Insulation Resistance (R/inch)

ThermoCor VIP Performance Through AL
Correlation Data

R/in % Reduction 

Film 1 Original Average 49.31 100%

Film 1 Round 1 Average 44.46 90%

Film

1 below represents the same product as identifie

performance over time chart. Notice the average per

Round

1 correlates to the 3yr data point of the

6 aver

actual aging data.

Film 24 Original Average 49.87 100%

Film 24 Round 1 Average 44.02 88%

Film 24 Round 2 Average 42.75 86%

Film 24 Round 3 Average 41.38 83%

This is the data of our current product under this t
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 UNITEDSTATES C. § 1350**

I,John M. Davenport, the chief executive officer of Fiberstars, Inc.(the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 ofchapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best ofmy knowledge,

(i)    the Annual Report of theCompany on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

(ii)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| March 31, 2006 |        | /s/ JOHN  M. DAVENPORT |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------|
|                |   | John M. Davenport      |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

----
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Grant Lee, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole et al., Respondents.

[735 NYS2d 745]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, J.), entered March 7, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists for disturbing the hearing court’s findings discrediting petitioner’s testimony that he did not refuse to attend the final revocation hearing on September 10 and October 5, 1999 and did not sign refusal forms for those dates, and crediting the correction officers’ testimony that petitioner did sign such refusal forms as attested to by their witness signatures. Accordingly, the subsequent adjournments were chargeable to petitioner, and the final hearing was timely held (Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i]). Petitioner’s bald assertion that the signatures on the forms are forgeries did not warrant the professional handwriting analysis which he requested. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3866

To provide certain employee protection benefits for railroad employees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1994

Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. OBEY, Mr.

COLEMAN, Mr. SABO, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. PETERSON of

Minnesota, Mr. VENTO, Mr. OLVER, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. KOPETSKI,

Mr. RAHALL, Mr. HAMBURG, Mr. FILNER, Mr. LANTOS, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. TORRES, Mr. MARKEY, and Mr. JACOBS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy

and Commerce

A BILL

To provide certain employee protection benefits for railroad

employees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

4 Section 10901 of title 49, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in subsection (c)—

7 (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as

8 paragraph (3); and
2

•HR 3866 IH

1 (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the

2 following new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(2) The Commission shall in any order approving

4 an application under this section require a fair and equi5 table arrangement for protection of the interests of rail6 road employees who may be affected thereby no less pro7 tective of and beneficial to the interests of such employees

8 than those established pursuant to section 11347 of this

9 title.’’; and

10 (2) by striking subsection (e).

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1657

ROBERT WHITEHEAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN VAN LLOYD, Attorney at Law; BARR, WARNER,

LLOYD & HENIFIN LAW FIRM, in their official

and individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-03-3637-9)

Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gerald Chambers, Jr.,

TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Whitehead appeals the district court’s order

accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his tort action in which he alleged legal

malpractice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Whitehead v. Lloyd, No. CA-03-3637-9 (D.S.C. Apr. 20,

2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
CMA-2013.12.31 10K_EX 10.20A






Exhibit 10.20A
Schedule of Named Executive Officers Party to
Change of Control Employment Agreement (BE4 and Higher Version)
(As of December 31, 2013)
Ralph W. Babb, Jr.
Jon W. Bilstrom
Curtis C. Farmer
J. Michael Fulton
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exh. 99.3

                                 May 1, 2000

TO: The Unsecured Creditors of CRIIMI MAE Inc.

Dear Creditor:

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of CRIIMI MAE Inc. urges you to
vote in favor of the enclosed Debtors' Third Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization by marking your ballot to accept the Plan.

I am the Chairman of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The
Committee was appointed by the Office of the United States Trustee shortly
after the beginning of this case, and it has been representing the interests
of all unsecured creditors of CRIIMI MAE Inc. during this Chapter 11
proceeding. Committee members include both holders of CRIIMI MAE Inc.'s
9 1/8% Senior Notes and non-bondholder unsecured creditors. The Committee has
been assisted by counsel, accountants and investment bankers. We have been
intimately involved with the proceeding and have participated in extensive
negotiations with the Debtor, other parties-in-interest, and potential
investors in the Debtor about potential reorganization plans. In addition, at
one point, our Committee filed and was pursuing its own plan that competed
with the Debtor's plan of reorganization.

However, after a series of lengthy negotiations which ended last month, we
reached an agreement with the Debtor with respect to the treatment of
unsecured creditors under the Debtor's plan, and the Debtor amended its plan
to incorporate this agreed-upon treatment. That treatment is set forth in the
accompanying plan and disclosure statement, as the treatment of Class A-9 and
A-10 creditors. It provides for the payment of unsecured claims in full with
a combination of cash and notes. You should carefully review the plan and
disclosure statement to evaluate this treatment.

It is the view of the Unsecured Creditors Committee that it is in the best
interest of the unsecured creditors of CRIIMI MAE Inc. to support the
Debtor's Plan and to vote to accept that plan. We believe that, under the
circumstances faced by the unsecured creditors in this case, reaching an
agreement with the Debtor for such treatment was in the best interest of the
creditors, and we recommend that creditors vote in favor of the plan so as to
receive such treatment.

                                       Yours truly,

                                       /s/ Paul Meiring

                                       Paul Meiring
                                       Chairman
                                       Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
                                         of CRIIMI MAE Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18851]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the Appellate, Bankruptcy, 
Civil, and Evidence Rules; Correction

AGENCY: Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate, 
Bankruptcy, and Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, 
Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments and open hearings; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and 
Evidence Rules published a document in the Federal Register on August 
9, 2018, concerning the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of 
Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of 
Evidence. The document contained an incorrect date for the Bankruptcy 
Rules public hearings scheduled on the proposed amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, 
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference 
of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One 
Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-240, Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 
502-1820.
    Correction: In the Federal Register of August 9, 2018, in FR Doc. 
2018-17092, on page 39463, in the second column, correct the public 
hearings scheduled on the proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Rules 
to read:
    <bullet> Bankruptcy Rules in Washington, DC on January 10, 2019, 
and in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 24, 2019;

    Dated: August 24, 2018.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf,
Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Judicial 
Conference of the United States.
[FR Doc. 2018-18851 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P