alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SHARON K. KLEIN,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2021-1770

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-20-0177-I-2.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

BRIDGET A. MOORHEAD, Selman Breitman LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for petitioner. 

 SONIA W. MURPHY, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON,

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 21-1770 Document: 67 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2022
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

April 11, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1770 Document: 67 Page: 2 Filed: 04/11/2022
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05621]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Effective date: March 12, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
March 4, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request 
of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 117 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2015-37, CP2015-48.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Requirements.
[FR Doc. 2015-05621 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              17
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,415
<PP&E>                                          11,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,443
<BONDS>                                          3,072
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,531)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,726
<SALES>                                          4,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,644
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   984
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    185
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                185
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       185
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
exv10w16











10.16 Irrevocable Maximum Guarantee Letter, dated April 15, 2011, issued to

China Merchant Bank, Jinan Branch, by Shandong Runyin Bio-chemical, for a RMB 10

million loan





	•	 	Main Contents







	 	•	 	Contract No.: 2011 Nian Zhao Ji 60 Bao Zi No. 21110403







	 	•	 	Execution Date: April 15, 2011







	 	•	 	Guarantor: Shandong Runyin Bio-chemical;







	 	•	 	Loaner: China Merchants Bank, Jinan Branch;







	 	•	 	Borrower: Shandong Xiangrui Pharmacy Co., Ltd







	 	•	 	To ensure the performance of the borrower’s obligations and the
effectuation of the loaner’s rights under the Credit Extension Agreement (Ref. 2011
Nian Zhao Ji 60 Zi No. 21110403) (Hereafter as “main contract”) entered between and
by the borrower and the loaner dated April 15, 2011, the guarantor willing to bear
the joint responsibility of guaranty as the maximum of RMB 10,000,000 Yuan from April
15, 2011 to April 14, 2012 under the main contract.







	 	•	 	Type of the guaranty: The guaranty is a joint responsibility guaranty.







	 	•	 	Term of guaranty: The term of the guaranty responsibility is two years
after the expired date of each specific credit extension term.







	 	•	 	Guaranty scope: The guaranty scope is the principal, interest, expense,
default interest, damage, penalty, and other cost under the main contract as the
maximum of RMB 10,000,000 Yuan, includes but not limits to fees of suit, fees of
arbitration, fees of attachment, fees of assessment, fees of auction, fees of
enforcement, fees of legal service.







	•	 	Headlines of the articles omitted







	 	•	 	Independence







	 	•	 	The commitment of the guarantor







	 	•	 	Abstention







	 	•	 	Dispute Settlement







	 	•	 	Nomenclature







	 	•	 	Notice







	 	•	 	Effectiveness







	 	•	 	Transaction of the loan







	 	•	 	Miscellaneous
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). Accordingly, we deny

Salsman’s request for oral argument.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES SALSMAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR

REGULATORY COMMISSION,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74043

NRC No. PRM-20-26

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

James Salsman petitions pro se for review of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s (“NRC”) decision denying his petition for rulemaking to amend

NRC’s regulations concerning the environmental and exposure limits for heavy

FILED

JUN 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74043

metal radionuclides, and to reclassify uranium solubility. See 10 C.F.R. Part 20. 

We dismiss the petition for review for lack of Article III standing because Salsman

did not demonstrate that he suffered an “injury in fact” that is concrete and

particularized and actual or imminent. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports dated March 16, 2000, included in this Form 10-K, into Netrix
Corporation's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3
(File No. 333-96165), on Form S-8 (File No. 333-93343), on Form S-8
(File No. 333-93349), on Form S-3 (File No. 333-81109), on Form S-8
(File No. 333-22149), and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-53901).


                                                      ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Vienna, Virginia
March 28, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 11994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05004]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    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 
meeting.
    The meeting 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 Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, International Collaborations in 
Environmental Health.
    Date: March 24-25, 2015.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Keystone Building, 
530 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Sally Eckert-Tilotta, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Office 
of Program Operations, Scientific Review Branch, P.O. Box 12233, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-1446, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#583d3b333d2a2c2c691836313d302b76363130763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbded8d0dec9cfcf8afbd5d2ded3c895d5d2d395dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 25, 2015.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-05004 Filed 3-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1420 

RICHARD ALFRED SINGHE,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals. (A79-343-813)

Submitted: November 18, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005

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

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez

Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil

Division, Joshua P. Jones, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Richard Alfred Singhe petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to

reconsider an order affirming without opinion the immigration

judge’s denial of a motion to reopen. Singhe’s motion to

reconsider raised only the argument that the Board erred in

affirming without opinion, by a single Board member, the

immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reopen. On appeal,

Singhe seeks to challenge the immigration judge’s decision denying

the motion to reopen. 

Singhe may not challenge in this appeal the immigration

judge’s order denying his motion to reopen, as affirmed by the

Board, as he did not file a timely petition for review from that

order. A petitioner has thirty days to file a petition for review.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). This time period is

“jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict

fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).

The filing of a motion to reconsider does not toll the thirty-day

period for seeking review of the underlying order. Id. at 394.

Accordingly, because Singhe did not file a petition for review

within thirty days of the Board’s order affirming the immigration

judge’s denial of the motion to reopen, this court’s review is

limited to the Board’s denial of the motion to reconsider. As

Singhe makes no argument regarding that disposition, we conclude
- 3 -

that he has abandoned all claims that could properly be raised in

the appeal before us. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th

Cir. 2001) (holding failure to challenge denial of withholding of

removal and relief under Convention Against Torture in opening

brief constitutes abandonment of those claims); Edwards v. City of

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding failure

to raise specific issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of

that issue under Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A), requiring that

argument section of opening brief contain contentions, reasoning,

and authority). 

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contain summary financial information extracted from
Jackpot's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets - September 30, 1998
and June 30, 1998 and its Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income -
three months ended September 30, 1998 and 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          49,824
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,608
<PP&E>                                          35,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,646
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,335
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,207
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,539
<INCOME-TAX>                                       431
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                        1,436,542
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3,279,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              5,047,493
<PP&E>                                      297,397,114
<DEPRECIATION>                               11,456,297
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              297,136,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        14,947,058
<BONDS>                                      95,097,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        158,628
<OTHER-SE>                                  186,933,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                297,136,554
<SALES>                                      46,919,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             47,663,861
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                19,671,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            4,308,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              12,105,426
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          12,105,426
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 12,105,426
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.91


</TABLE>
Exhibit 7.1
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Amounts in millions of Korean Won)
 2003
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007Pre-tax income from continuing
operations before adjustment for
minority interests in
consolidated subsidiaries or
income or loss from equity
investees
    
    
    2,751,793
    
    
    
    5,336,018
    
    
    
    5,468,465
    
    
    
    4,238,167
    
    
    
    4,856,298Fixed charges:Interest expenses and
amortization of debt discount
and premium on all indebtedness,
etc.
    
    
    251,441
    
    
    
    193,694
    
    
    
    149,417
    
    
    
    183,392
    
    
    
    240,062Appropriate portion of rentals
    
    
    1,994
    
    
    
    375
    
    
    
    488
    
    
    
    234
    
    
    
    112Total fixed charges
    
    
    253,435
    
    
    
    194,069
    
    
    
    149,905
    
    
    
    183,626
    
    
    
    240,174Pre-tax income from continuing
operations before adjustment for
minority interests in
consolidated subsidiaries or
income or loss from equity
investees plus fixed charges
    
    
    2,986,899
    
    
    
    5,507,014
    
    
    
    5,638,149
    
    
    
    4,403,034
    
    
    
    5,000,803Ratio of earnings to fixed
charges under Korean GAAP
    
    
    11.79
    
    
    
    28.38
    
    
    
    37.61
    
    
    
    23.98
    
    
    
    20.82Ratio of earnings to fixed
charges under US GAAP
    
    
    11.79
    
    
    
    25.71
    
    
    
    38.27
    
    
    
    24.40
    
    
    
    20.73
<PAGE>
 
                                                                EXHIBIT 24.

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below
hereby constitutes and appoints Lawrence M. Coss and Joel H. Gottesman, and each
or either one of them, his true and lawful attorney(s)-in-fact and agent(s),
with full power of substitution and resubstitution for him and in his name,
place, and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the 1996 Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of Green Tree Financial Corporation, and any and all amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto
said attorney(s)-in-fact an agent(s), and each of them, full power and authority
to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite or necessary to be done
in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney(s)-in-fact and agent(s), or either of them, or his or their
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.






/S/ W. MAX MCGEE                                             March 18, 1998
---------------------------------
W.   Max McGee



/S/ ROBERT S. NICKOLOFF                                      March 18, 1998
---------------------------------
Robert S. Nickoloff
NUMBER 13-11-00578-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

IN RE KENNETH HICKMAN

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Relator, Kenneth Hickman, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus with this Court alleging that respondents, Bee County deputy district clerks 

Zenaida Silva and Juema James, failed to “properly fil[e] his pleadings or giv[e] him timely 

notice of dismissal” of his underlying lawsuit against the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice. Relator has also filed a motion to suspend Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.3 (stating the requisite number of copies of documents that 

must be filed in an original proceeding).

This Court, having reviewed and fully considered relator’s petition, is of the opinion 
2

that we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a deputy district clerk. See 

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004) (noting that a court of appeals may issue a 

writ of mandamus only against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals 

district).. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED FOR WANT 

OF JURISDICTION. We deny relator’s motion to suspend Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.3 as moot.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

22nd day of September, 2011.