alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission Commissioners’ Monthly Docket Report at Close of Business on September 30, 2012

DOCKET NUMBER
RESPONDENT'S NAME
DOCKETED
TYPE*
BRIEFING NOTICE
DATE
BRIEFING STATUS
COMMISSIONER NOT
PARTICIPATING

1

07-1796
Pullman Power,
LLC, and its successors

09/24/08

DFR



Chairman Rogers

2

08-1292
Wal-Mart Distribution Center #6016

01/12/10

DFR

01/25/10

Closed
Commissioner Attwood

3

08-1225
K.E.R.
Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Armadillo Underground

01/13/10

DFR

01/25/10

Closed


4

08-0866
Southern Pan Services
Company

04/15/10

DFR

05/05/10

Closed

5
08-1547
United States Postal Service
04/29/10
DFR
05/21/10
Closed

6
08-1318
LJC Dismantling
Corp.
05/04/10
DFR
05/24/10
Closed

7
09-0004
Stark Excavating, Inc.
06/15/10
DFR
06/28/10
Closed

8
09-0005
Stark Excavating,
Inc.
06/15/10
DFR
06/28/10
Closed


9

07-0437
Cleveland
Wrecking Company

07/28/10

DFR

09/22/10

Closed


10

09-1072
Boh Brothers Construction Company, LLC

08/25/10

DFR

09/01/10

Closed

11
09-1048
Brand Energy Solutions LLC
09/02/10
DFR
09/07/10
Closed


12

08-1656
Central Florida Equipment
Rentals, Inc.

09/08/10

DFR

10/22/10

Closed

13
10-0265
Jesco, Inc.
12/30/10
DFR
02/02/11
Closed

14
09-1278
Otis Elevator Company
02/14/11
DFR
03/01/11
Closed


15

10-0551
Ryder Transportation
Services

04/05/11

DFR

05/03/11

Closed

16
09-1013
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
04/06/11
DFR
04/19/11
Closed
Commissioner Attwood

17

09-1451
All Erection &
Crane Rental Corp.

04/13/11

DFR

04/27/11

Closed


Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission Commissioners’ Monthly Docket Report at Close of Business on September 30, 2012

DOCKET NUMBER
RESPONDENT'S NAME
DOCKETED
TYPE*
BRIEFING NOTICE
DATE
BRIEFING STATUS
COMMISSIONER NOT
PARTICIPATING
18
10-0610
E.R. Zeiler Excavating, Inc.
05/16/11
DFR
05/27/11
Closed

19
08-1386
Delek Refining,
Ltd.
06/08/11
DFR
06/14/11;
05/29/12
Closed


20

10-2659
Jacobs Field
Services North America

10/27/11

DFR

11/22/11

Closed

21
09-1901
Seward Ship’s Drydock, Inc.
11/14/11
DFR
11/21/11
Closed


22

11-0977
Custom Built Marine Construction, Inc.

12/13/11

DFR

12/22/11

Closed

23
10-1697
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.
12/14/11
DFR
12/22/11
Closed


24

10-1055
Bardav, Inc., d/b/a Martha’s Vineyard
Mobile Home Park

03/02/12

DFR

03/29/12

Closed

25
09-1184
Dana Container, Inc.
03/28/12
DFR
04/25/12
Closed

26
11-0146
Lake Erie
Construction Co.
05/18/12
DFR
05/24/12
Closed

27
10-1372
Briones Utility Company
08/20/12
DFR
09/05/12
Open

28
11-1788
Q3 Contracting,
Inc.
09/11/12
DFR
09/17/12
Open

29
12-0318
Torre Mackle Group, LLC
09/27/12
DFR




30

12-0097
Federal
Construction Group

09/27/12

DFR



31
08-1774
Angelica Textile Services, Inc.
09/28/12
DFR



*	DFR – Direction for Review REM – Appellate Remand
INT REV - Interlocutory Review
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANGEL GOMEZ, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 12-73826 Agency No. A092-486-836
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: NOONAN, NGUYEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Miguel Angel Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of removal. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 

# FILED
APR 18 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 On appeal, Gomez does not challenge the IJ’s denial of asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture.Gomez’s claim that neither the IJ nor the BIA had the benefit of the 2011 Country Report is belied by the record. Further, Gomez’s argument that mentally ill persons constitute a cognizable social group misses the mark because the BIA did not reach the question of whether Gomez’s proposed group is cognizable. Instead, the BIA found that even assuming his proposed social group is cognizable, Gomez nevertheless failed to demonstrate a clear probability that he would face persecution on account of his membership in that social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (providing that in order to be eligible for withholding of removal, the alien must demonstrate that his “life or freedom would be threatened in [his home] country because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2) (providing that absent a showing of past persecution, the applicant who is seeking withholding of removal must establish “that it is more likely than not that he or she would be persecuted on account of” a protected ground). The BIA’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. Gomez failed to point to any evidence in the record showi ng that it is more likely than not that he will suffer any mistreatment that rises to the level of persecution because of his mental illness. See Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder , 714 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.

22013) (“[A]n inadequate healthcare system is not persecution and is not harm inflicted because of membership in a particular social group.”). Because the BIA denied Gomez’s withholding of removal claim on the merits, we need not reach his argument th at the BIA erred in finding that he was previously convicted of a particularly serious crime. PETITION DENIED.

3
Order Filed August 15, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00 781

- CV

IN RE TRAVIS FOSTER , Relator
Original Proceeding from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- 00357


### ORDER Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s motion for temporary

emergency relief as moot

.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUS TICE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

70 

KA 11-00856 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBBIE L. ALLEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (MARK C. DAVISON OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JAMES B. RITTS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G.

Reed, A.J.), rendered April 5, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled

substance in the third degree (two counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Allen ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d ___

[Feb. 8, 2013]).

Entered: February 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7351
STEVEN R. DEWITT, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON ADDUCI, Chairman and Disciplinary Hearing Officer; DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE PROCESS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-942-3-24-BC) Submitted: March 25, 2003 Decided: May 1, 2003 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven R. Dewitt, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Steven R. Dewitt, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss without prejudice Dewitt’s petition for writ of mandamus. The district court correctly reasoned that under the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Dewitt’s right of action, if a ny, has not accrued because he has not established that the validity of his disciplinary conviction has been reversed. Accordingly, we affirm the district court. See Dewitt v. Adduci , No. CA-02-942-3-24-BC (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2002). Dewitt’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
RE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION t 1 2016 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. HEABil\lG DOCKET 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RID AN INVESTMENTS, INC. 

FDMS NO.: FAA-2013-1082 

ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD, ALJ. 

AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.214 and in accordance with the Order of the ALJ served on August 

17, 2016, Complainant hereby amends the Complaint as follows: 

The citation to 49 C.F.R. § 172.702(c)(2) in Section III,~ 14.21, is hereby changed to 49 

C.F.R. § 172.704(c)(2). 

For sanction calculation, Complainant considers Respondent to be.a Type C business entity. 

Respectfully submitted by the parties this 15th day of September 2016. 

Patricia A. McNall 

Acting Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

By ]JQ_ ~' af~nn H. Brown 

Western Team 

N ationa1 Enforcement Practice 

222 W. 7th Avenue #14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7586 

(907) 271-5271 tel 

(907) 271-2800 fax 

g1enn.brown@faa.gov 

Pagel 

Amendment of Complaint 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Ridan Investments, Inc. 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-1082 

I hereby certify that on this date I have served a copy of the foregoing Amendment of Complaint 

by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and by either facsimile transmission or 

electronic mail, as indicated, to the following: 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Lawrence M. Burek 

Law Offices of Lawrence M. Burek 

550 North Parkcenter Dr. Ste. 204 

Santa Ana, CA 92589 

Email: lburek@lsblawyers.com 

I further certify that on this date I have served the original and one copy of the foregoing 

Amendment of Complaint by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and 

facsimile, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 

Fax: (202) 493-5020 

DATED: -~- /.s; ~/ p 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587
* 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

FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-60454

____________

JAMES BRADDOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEGGETT & PLATT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:96-CV-29-D-D)

March 31, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Leggett & Platt (“Leggett”) appeals from a judgment in favor

of James Braddock, awarding $33,000 in compensatory damages and

$50,000 in punitive damages for discrimin atory discharge in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”),

Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101

et seq.

Because the district cour t has yet to rule on Braddock’s

timely filed Motion for Reinstatement or, Alternatively, for Front2

Pay——a matter intimately tied to the merits of Braddock’s claim and

clearly “an element of [his] complete compensation”——Leggetts’

notice of appeal is “ineffective” pursuant to the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a) (“A notice of appeal

filed after . . . entry of the judgment but before disposition of

[a motion to alter or amend the judgment under F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 59]

i s ineffective to appeal from the . . . judgment . . . until the

entry of the order disposing of the

. . . outstanding [motion].”);

Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney

, 489 U.S. 169, 175-76, 109 S. Ct. 987,

991-92, 103 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1989) (holding that motions involving

“an element of [the] plaintiff’s complete compensation” and

requiring the consi deration of “matters encompassed within the

merits of the underlying action,” such as whether a particular

award is “necessary to compensate the plaintiff fully,” constitute

a “motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e)”)

(internal quotation and alteration omitted).

The appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice.
#### A. HENLY v. J. B. LANIER.

One who has been adjudged a bankrupt may maintain an action in his own name, upon a promissory note, which has been assigned to him as a part of his personal property exemption, under the 14th section of the Bankrupt Act.

A verbal promise made by a bankrupt, after he has received his certificate of discharge, to pay a note theretofore executed by him, is valid and binding.

*{Fraley*v. *Kelly,*67 N. 0. Rep., 78; *Kernfhall*v. *MeBay,*67 N. 0. Rep., 78, cited and approved.)

Civil Action, upon a promissory note, tried before Cloud, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of Davie Superior Court.

*173All the facts necessary to an understanding of the case, as decided in this Court, are stated in the opinion delivered by Justice Bynum.

There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

*Shipp & Bailey,*for the appellant.

J! *M. Clement,*contra.

Bynum, J.

After the defendant executed his promissory note to the plaintiff, he was adjudicated a bankrupt; and after the plaintiff had begun his action thereon, he also was adjudicated a bankrupt, and the note sued on was assigned to him, the plaintiff, as a part of his personal property exemption, pursuant to the fourteenth section of the Act.

The defendant pleaded his certificate of discharge in bar of the action; the plantiff replied a new promise made since the discharge.

Two questions are raised : First, Can the plaintiff maintain the action in his own name? Second, Must the new promise be in writing ?

1. The case states that the note sued on was a part of the plaintiff’s estate, when he became a bankrupt, and after the adjudication was assigned to him, under sec. 14 of the Act, as a part of his personal property exemption. That section excepts, from the operation of the Act, the exempted property, the title to which does'hot pass to the assignee, but remains in the bankrupt; so that as to that, his right of property, his possession and his right of action, remain as they were before the adjudication. The action, therefore, is well brought.

2. We know of no law of this State, and no provision of the Bankrupt Act, which requires the new promise to be in writing. Upon contracts entered into since the adoption of •the new Code, it is provided by statute, (see Bat. Rev., cb. *17417, sec. 51,) that to take them out of the operation of the Statute of Limitations the new acknowledgment or promise must be in writing. But this applies to the Statute of Limitations only, and has no application to promises, which will take a case out of the operation of the Bankrupt Act. In *Fraley v*. *Kelly,*67 N. C. Rep., 78, and *Hernthall*v. *McRae,*57 N. C. Rep., 21, it was held to be sufficient to repel the bar of an adjudication in bankruptcy, to prove an unequivocal promise to pay the debt, made after the adjudication, without reference'to its being in writing. The jury in our case found that such a promise was made.

There is no error.

Pee Cukiam. Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR TO
DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                          21,716
<SECURITIES>                                     7,170
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,738
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,809
<PP&E>                                          12,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,681
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,375
<SALES>                                         45,317
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,317
<CGS>                                           28,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,736
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,544)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,744)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,744)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.29)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
4.2


DESCRIPTION
OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES


REGISTERED
PURUSANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE SECURITIES


EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED


 


As
of June 30, 2020, Xiamen Lutong International Travel Agency Co. Ltd. (“we,” “our,” “us” or
the “Company”) had one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the “Exchange Act”): its common stock. The Company is authorized to issue one hundred seventy million (170,000,000)
shares of stock, consisting of one hundred fifty million (150,000,000) shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share and
twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share to be designated in classes or series and the
number of each class or series and the voting powers, designations, preferences, limitations, restrictions, relative rights, and
distinguishing designation of each class or series of stock as the Board of Directors shall determine in its sole discretion.


 


Common
Stock


 


All
holders of common stock are entitled to one vote for each share held of record on all matters to be voted on by stockholders.
All common stockholders have no cumulative voting rights with respect to the election of directors, with the result that the holders
of more than 50% of the shares voting for the election of directors can elect all of the directors then up for election. All holders
of common stock are entitled to receive dividends and other distributions when, as and if, declared by the board of directors
out of funds legally available. Stockholders should not expect to receive any cash dividends on their shares in the foreseeable
future.


 


Upon
our liquidation or dissolution, all holders of our common stock will be entitled to share in the distribution of all assets remaining
after payment of all debts, liabilities and expenses, and after providing for each class of stock, if any, having preference over
our common stock. Our common stockholders have no conversion, preemptive or other subscription rights, and there are no redemption
provisions applicable to the common stock.


 


Our
common stock has no preemptive rights. The absence of these rights could, upon our sale of additional shares of common stock,
result in the dilution of each stockholder’s percentage ownership. Preemptive rights generally are not used in modern corporations
because they delay, complicate and increase the cost of financing by the sale of stock or convertible securities.


 


Capital
Market


 


Our
common stock is quoted on OTC Pink market operated by the OTC Markets under the symbol “LTGJ.” There has been very
limited trading in our shares of common stock.
Exhibit 10.2

  Confidential portions of this document indicated by "*****" have been omitted
                    and filed separately with the Commission

                                 EDGCOMB METALS
                            THE SPIRIT OF EXCELLENCE

                                    Quotation

Date:      March 5, 1999

To:        Craig Lepa                        From:             Mary Anderson
           Purchasing Agent                                    District Manager
           Featherlite Mfg Inc.
           319-547-6000                                        612-331-4000

F.O.B.     Your Plant

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


----------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
              Grade                              Size                   Quantity         Delivery          Price
----------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
      <S>                           <C>                                 <C>             <C>              <C>    
                                           0.95 (p/m.002) x
             3105-H14               38.25, 41.5, 48 x 75-96" lgths
     Spec Featherlite finish                                            ***** lbs       per release      *****/clb
----------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
              ditto                        .120 (p/m.003) x
                                        34.75, 40.25, 48, 53 x          ***** lbs       per release      *****/clb
                                             75-96" lgths
----------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
           3004-H291 MF                   .040 x 37, 41, 48 x
                                             75-96" lgths               ***** lbs       per release      *****/clb
----------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------

</TABLE>


Material quoted for year 2,000. Per Featherlite, any tonnage carried into 2001 a
1% carrying cost would apply.

All material paper-interleaved with the exception of printed products. It would
be Edgcomb's discretion to apply. Material billed on theoretical weight, 2,500
lb max skids. Forklift rear unload. Terms: 45 days.

Pricing based on forward ingot of *****/clb and would have to be reconfirmed at
time of commitment.

REVISION 3/5/99: Revised pricing on first three items are firm if ingot future
for 2000 opens Monday 3/8/99 at $***** or below.

                        THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
                          QUOTE YOUR METAL REQUIREMENTS

/s/  Craig Lepa
Purchasing Agent

* Quoted pricing is subject to prior sale.