alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
RAYMOND REYNOLDS, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AR MY, Respondent.

______________________

2015

- 3013

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. PH

- 1221

- 13

- 0307 -W- 1.

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R

Upon review of this recently docketed petition for re

view, it appears that Raymond Reynold s’s petition was not timely filed

. It appears that o n July 3 , 2014, the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) issued its Final Order, finding that the administrative judge correctly dismissed Rey nolds’ s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court received Reynolds’s petition for review on September 8 , 2014, 67 days after the Board issued its final order. Case: 15-3013 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/29/2014REYNOLDS v. ARMY 2

The time for filing a petition for review from a B oard decision or order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), which provides in relevant part that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decis ion of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). In order to be timely, a petition for r eview must be received by the court within the filing deadline. Pinat v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , 931 F.2d 1544, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (petition is filed when received by this court); see also Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A). This filing period is “statutory, mandato

- ry, [and] jurisdictional.” Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp ., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) Reynolds is directed to show cause, within 30 days of the date of filing of this order, why this petition should not be dismissed as untimely. The Department of the Army may also respond within that time.

(2) The briefing schedule is stayed.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s 30 Case: 15-3013 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/29/2014
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 1, 2022

No. 04-21-00550-CV

Jose VAZQUEZ-VICENTE, M.D. d/b/a Advanced Health Institute for Women’s Health, P.A.,

Appellant

v.

Priscilla VILLARREAL-TREVINO,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CVB001055D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal and appellant’s brief was originally due on January 24, 

2022. On January 31, 2022, appellant filed an unopposed motion requesting an extension of time 

until February 23, 2022.

The motion is GRANTED, and appellant is ORDERED to file his brief no later than 

February 23, 2022.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of February, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAX LOUMENA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

EVALINA BARTH,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 17130

D.C. No. 5: 14

- cv

- 05423

- LHK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11 , 2017 **

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges

.

Max Loumena appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his

motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem and subsequent dismissal of his civil

rights action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss this

appeal as moot

.

* 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

APR 19 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 17130

Approximately one month after Loumena filed this appeal, he turn ed 18

years of age and was no longer required to secure the appointment of a guardian ad

litem in order to pursue his claims

. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1) ( the capacity of an

individual to sue or be sued is determined by the law of the individual’s domici le );

C al. Civ. P. Code § 372(a) ( a minor must be represented in court proceedings by a

guardian ad litem or guardian or conservator of an estate (emphasis added) )

.

Accordingly, this appeal is moot because this court cannot grant effective relief

regarding the district court’s denial of L oumena ’s motion to appoint a guardian ad

litem and the resulting dismissal of the action

. See United States v. Tanoue , 94

F.3d 1342 , 1344 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n appeal must be dismissed as moot if an

event occurs while the appeal is pending that makes it impossible for the appellate

court to grant any e ffectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” (citations and

internal quotatio n marks omitted)).

Loumena’s request for a transfer to the Central District of California , raised

for the first time in his opening brief, is denied

.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Loumena’s arguments

regarding the merits of his claim.

DISMISSED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7089

CHARLES RAY ALLEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE DEEDS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-97-222)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Ray Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Ray Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Deeds, No. CA-97-222

(E.D. Va. July 15, 1998). 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
Amendment/Extension of Directors Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 American Wagering, Inc. 
 Amendment/Extension of Directors Stock Option Plan 
 At a meeting of the Board of Directors on August 1, 2006, the Company’s Directors Stock Option Plan was amended, extending the expiration date from
April 30, 2006, to April 30, 2011. The amendment approved by the Board of Directors reads as follows: 
 RESOLVED, that
Section 3.B. of the Directors Stock Option Plan is amended and restated to read as follows: “Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained relating to amendment or discontinuance, this Plan shall continue to be in effect until the close
of business on April 30, 2011. No Options may be granted hereunder after the close of business on April 30, 2011.”
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BARBARA STEELE, *

* No. 16-67V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: November 21, 2019

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Damages; decision based on proffer;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * influenza (“flu”) vaccination; tetanus-

* diphtheria-acellular pertussis

* (“Tdap”) vaccination; shoulder injury. 

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Brian L. Burchett, Burchett Law Firm, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner;

Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On January 12, 2016, Barbara Steele filed a petition seeking compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 

et seq., alleging that the influenza (“flu”) and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis 

(“Tdap”) vaccinaations caused her to suffer shoulder injuries related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) in both shoulders. On May 23, 2016, the former chief 

special master ruled, based upon respondent’s concession, see Resp’t’s Rep., filed 

May 23, 2016, that petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act. 

On November 20, 2019, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of 

Compensation, to which petitioner agrees. Based upon the record as a whole, the 

special master finds the proffer reasonable and that petitioner is entitled to an 

 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. 

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of 

medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any 

redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the attached Proffer the court awards 

petitioner:

1. A lump sum payment of $2,583,262.00, representing compensation for 

lost earnings and pain and suffering, in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner, Barbara Steele. This amount represents compensation for 

all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 17-1557V according to this decision 

and the attached proffer.2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Haley Hawkins, at (202) 

357-6360. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
1 The Honorable F.A. Gossett, III, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska, to whom the case was referred fo r final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2570

___________ Kathaleen Burnett, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Nagl Manufacturing, Company, * Norm Fredrickson; June Jones; * [UNPUBLISHED] Richard Keeten, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 28, 2007 Filed: September 4, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kathaleen Burnett appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action against her former employer, Nagl Manufacturing Company and others. Havi ng carefully reviewed the record and considered Burnett’s arguments , we conclude that the district court properly granted-2- summary judgment and that there is no basis for reversal. See Jacob-Mua v. Veneman , 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (de novo standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We de ny Burnett’s pending motions.

______________________________
Exhibit 10.1 


VAXGEN, INC.


 


ADDENDUM TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK


 


This ADDENDUM TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK (this “Amendment”) dated as of December 22, 2006, among VAXGEN, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and [_____________________] (“Holder”) amends the Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock of VaxGen, Inc. dated September 21, 2004, Warrant No. CW-[_________] (the “Warrant”) under which Holder may purchase [______________________] shares of the Company’s common stock. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Warrant.


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder desire to amend the Warrant to extend the term of the Warrant for an additional three (3) years.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.           Addendum. The Expiration Date as defined in the preamble to the Warrant is hereby amended such that the Expiration Date of September 21, 2007 is extended for an additional three (3) years, to September 21, 2010. 


 


2.           Governing Law. This Addendum shall be governed by, and construed according to the laws of the State of California.




*          *          *          *          * 



Executed effective as of the date first set forth above.


 


 





		VAXGEN, INC.






By:______________________________

      Name:

      Title:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7408
ROBERT DOUGLAS TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NED M. MIKULA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-693) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Douglas Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Mikula , No. CA-95-693 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 1995). To the extent that Appellant claims his counsel conspired with the prosecution, his claim may not be barred by the statute of limitations, but it is barred by the Supreme Court's holding in Heck v. Humphrey, ___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594 (U.S. June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188). In all other respects Appellant's claims against his attorney are not cognizable because the attorney was not a state actor. See Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312 (1981); Deas v. Potts , 547 F.2d 800 (4th Cir. 1976). 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
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of YTB International, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John D. Clagg, 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, based on my
knowledge, that:





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





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





/s/ John
      D. ClaggName:  John
      D. ClaggTitle:
      Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 16,
      2009
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6690
In Re: VERNON BULLOCK, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-280-5) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon Bullock, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Vernon Bullock petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) case. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court has dismissed Bullock’s § 2241 petition. Because the district court has recently decided Bullock’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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
_____________

No. 96-1147MN

_____________

Laxman S. Sundae, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Minnesota.

United States of America; *

Internal Revenue Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

_____________

Submitted: November 21, 1996

 Filed: November 27, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Laxman S. Sundae appeals the district court's grant of summary

judgment in favor of the Government denying Sundae's claim for a refund of

federal income taxes for the years 1983 and 1984.

After a careful review of the record, we conclude the district court

properly granted the Government's motion. Because this case is highly

fact-specific, an extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Having carefully considered all of Sundae's contentions and finding them

to be without merit, we affirm the district court without further

discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12855-12856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5033]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, HIV Disclosure SEP.
    Date: March 29-30, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Michele C. Hindi-Alexander, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy 
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 
NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
8382, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9c1c0c7cdc0c8c5c4e9c4c8c0c587c7c0c187cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d6bebfb8b2bfb7babb96bbb7bfbaf8b8bfbef8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children;

[[Page 12856]]

93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 24, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-5033 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>

To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/22/2011 11:32 PM

Subject: RE: Follow-up to VI Comments on Gasholders

Dear Ms. Howard,

The attachments are submitted as response to provide the requested

information on gasholders per your e-mail request below. Please do not

hesitate to contact me with any questions or requests further

information. Thank you.

Richard Krock

Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute

1737 King Street Suite 390

Alexandria, VA 22314

Direct: 571.970.3392

Mobile: 571.216.4474

Fax: 571.970.3271

Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylindesign.com

-----Original Message-----

From: Howard.Jodi@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Howard.Jodi@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:21 AM

To: Richard Krock

Subject: Follow-up to VI Comment

Mr. Krock,

VI and some member companies provided comments about gas holders. One

of the suggestions made for regulatory requirements was that work

practices be employed for gas holders (installation of floating objects

to reduce emissions from the water seal) but there were no cost

estimates or emission reductions provided with those comments. Would

you please provide any cost and emissions data that you have regarding

employing work practices for gas holders (i.e. - floating objects)?

Thanks

************************************************************

Jodi Howard, Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA - Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Program Divisions

Refining and Chemicals Group

Mail Code: E143-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-4607 Fax: 919-541-0246

(See attached file: VI Response to EPA Inquiry on Gasholder Information

09-23-11.pdf)(See attached file: Gasholder VC Emissions Study at
Montreal Polytechnic A&WMA Feb 2004.pdf)