alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOVITA CERVANTEZ-SANCHEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71928

Agency No. A090-538-113

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Jovita Cervantez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

APR 30 2015

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.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cervantez-Sanchez’s motion

as untimely, where it was filed 18 years after the order of deportation became final,

and she has not established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies. See

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen an order of deportation must be filed

within 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was

rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened, or on or before September 30,

1996, whichever is later); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (setting forth exceptions to the

filing deadline for motions to reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 243.1 (1995) (an order of

deportation becomes final upon dismissal of an appeal by the BIA). 

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Cervantez-Sanchez’s remaining

contentions. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

2 13-71928
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0174. CANDELARIO ZAZUETA v. MUPR 3 ASSETS, LLC.

Candelario Zazueta filed this application for discretionary appeal seeking

review of an order entered by the Cobb County Magistrate Court on November 11,

2016, in this dispossessory action. However, “[t]he only avenue of appeal available

from the magistrate court judgment is provided by OCGA § 15-10-41 (b) (1), which

allows for a de novo appeal to the state or superior court.” Handler v. Hulsey, 199

Ga. App. 751 (406 SE2d 225) (1991). This Court thus may address magistrate court

matters only if they already have been reviewed by the state or superior court. See

Westwind Corp. v. Washington Fed. S & L Assn., 195 Ga. App. 411 (393 SE2d 479)

(1990).

The Georgia Constitution provides that “[a]ny court shall transfer to the

appropriate court in the state any civil case in which it determines that jurisdiction or

venue lies elsewhere.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. VIII; Bosma v.

Gunter, 258 Ga. 664, 665 (373 SE2d 368) (1988). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Cobb County State Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/29/2016

November 29, 2016
**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 Quarterly Report of Acrongenomics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Constantine Poulios, the President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2006

 

/s/ Constantine Poulios ________

Constantine Poulios

President

(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07627]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; 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 Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; UDALL Center Review.
    Date: April 22-23, 2015.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Lorien Hotel & Spa, 1600 King Street, Alexandria, VA 
22314.
    Contact Person: Birgit Neuhuber, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, 
INDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 
3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-3562, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2bcb7a7baa7b0b7a092bcbbbcb6a1fcbcbbbafcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80eee5f5e8f5e2e5f2c0eee9eee4f3aeeee9e8aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 30 2015.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07627 Filed 4-2-15; 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>
##### 



Exhibit 10.21,
 NINTH AMENDMENT TO THE
DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN
    I .
 
 (1) Account(s)
 II.
  (7B) Class Settlement Account I In re Dynegy Inc. Securities Litigation.




---



##### 



Age of Participant or FormerFund Name
    
    ParticipantVanguard Target Retirement Income Fund
    
    Ages 65 olderVanguard Target Retirement
2005 Fund
    
    Ages 60 to 64Vanguard Target Retirement 2015 Fund
    
    Ages 50 to 59Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 Fund
    
    Ages 40 to 49Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund
    
    Ages 30 to 39Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 Fund
    
    Up to Age 29
 III.
  (7C)
Class Settlement Account II In re Dynegy Inc. ERISA Litigation.
  2




---



##### 



Fund Name
    
    Age of Participant or Former ParticipantVanguard Target Retirement Income
Fund
    
    Ages 65 or olderVanguard Target Retirement 2005
Fund
    
    Ages 60 to 64Vanguard Target Retirement 2015
Fund
    
    Ages 50 to 59Vanguard Target Retirement 2025
Fund
    
    Ages 40 to 49Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund
    
    Ages 30 to 39Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 Fund
    
    Up to Age 29
  3




---



##### 



IV.
   V.
  (21) Eligible Retirement Plan:
 
  4




---



##### 



VI.
  (43A) Roth Account
 (43B) Roth Contributions
 VII.
   VIII.
   IX.
   X.
    5




---



##### 



XI.
  3.12 Roth Contributions
 XII.
   XIII.
   XIV.
    6




---



##### 



DYNEGY INC.,
a Delaware corporationBy:
Title:
    
    /s/ Julius Cox

Chairman, Dynegy Inc. Benefit Plans CommitteeDate:
    
    December 4, 2007
  7
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07549]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Supplemental Record of Decision for Surveillance Towed Array 
Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of supplemental decision and availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (DoN) reaffirms its August 15, 
2012, Record of Decision to employ up to four Surveillance Towed Array 
Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar systems with 
certain geographical restrictions and mitigation monitoring designed to 
reduce potential adverse effects on the marine environment, including 
operating LFA sonar systems in the waters in which the Hawaiian Islands 
Stock Complex of common bottlenose dolphins could occur. The August 15, 
2012, Record of Decision implemented the preferred alternative, 
Alternative 2, identified in the 2012 Final Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement (FSEIS)/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact 
Statement (SOEIS) for SURTASS LFA sonar.
    Following litigation challenging the adequacy of the 2012 FSEIS/
FSOEIS, the District Court for the Northern District of California 
determined that the DoN failed to use the best available data when it 
determined potential impacts from the employment of SURTASS LFA sonar 
systems on one stock of common bottlenose dolphins in Hawaiian waters 
rather than the more current information that shows five stocks of 
common bottlenose dolphins in Hawaiian waters. Accordingly, DoN 
prepared a narrowly-tailored FSEIS/SOEIS to remedy this deficiency. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service was a cooperating agency in 
accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6 for the development of the narrowly-
tailored FSEIS/FSOEIS.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The full text of the Record of Decision 
(ROD) is available for public viewing and download at http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com. Single copies of the ROD are available upon 
request from SURTASS LFA Sonar SEIS/SOEIS Program Manager, 4350 Fairfax 
Drive, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203, or email: eisteam@surtass-lfa-
com.

    Dated: March 26, 2015.
P.A. Richelmi,
Lieutenant, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Alternate 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-07549 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 3810-FF-P
Amendment to Deferred Comp Plan for NEDs








AMENDMENT NUMBER 2013-1
TO THE
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR SAFEWAY NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS II
(Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2011)


Pursuant to Section 7.4(a) of the Deferred Compensation Plan for Safeway Non-Employee Directors II (the “Plan”), Safeway Inc. hereby amends the provisions of the Plan, as described below, effective as of March 15, 2013:


1.    Section 2.1(l) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


		
	“(l)
	“Plan Administrator” means the Executive Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company.”




2.    Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (c) to read as follows:


		
	“(c)
	The Company has approved an increase to each Director's Compensation in the amount of $40,000 per Plan Year effective April 1, 2013 (the “2013 Increase”).  Notwithstanding subsections 3.1(a) and 3.1(b) above, for each calendar quarter beginning with the first quarter of the 2014 Plan Year:




		
	(1)
	The amount of $8,750 from the 2013 Increase shall be automatically deferred under the Plan for each Director; and 




		
	(2)
	The amount of $1,250 from the 2013 Increase shall be payable in cash to each Director, which cash payment shall be eligible for elective deferral by the Director under Section 3.2 of the Plan.”




3.    Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding a sentence to the end thereof to read as follows:


“The Plan Administrator may delegate all or a portion of its authority to administer the Plan to one or more officers of the Company.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Safeway Inc. has hereby adopted this Amendment Number 2013-1 to the Plan as indicated by the signature of its duly authorized officer this 27th day of March, 2013.


SAFEWAY INC.
                    
By:      /s/ Laura A. Donald
Name:    Laura A. Donald
Title:    Vice President
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0546. ANTONIO ROBINSON v. CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT et al.

The Supreme Court dismissed Antonio Robinson’s appeal of the trial court’s

order denying the filing of his mandamus petition. Due to a clerical error, the appeal

wasthen transferred to and docketed in this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

REMOVED from our docket and TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/10/2016

November 10, 2016
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., Complainant,


### v. FAA Docket No.

**16~14~05** Horry County Department ofAirports, South Carolina Respondent.

NOTICE OFEXTENSION OFTIME
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is continuing its review ofDocketNo. 16-14-05. At this time, FAA has determined that additional time is necessary to ensure a fair and complete hearing of the matter before the agency. Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. [See, Rules ofPractice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that an extension oftime may be necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency. See 14 CFR 

### § 16.ll(a). An extension oftime is reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.11 (a), the Director does hereby extend the date that the Director's initial determination will be rendered in the above referenced case. The Director's Determination in this matter will be rendered on or about October 16, 2015.

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE 

## iJ._ I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September

# a. 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) orpersonally delivered a 

### true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to: Counsel for Respondent David Y. Bannard, Esq. Jeffrey R. Blease, Esq. Jaclyn V. Pilch, Esq. Foley and Lardner LLP 111 Huntington A venue Boston, MA 02199 Counsel for Complainant Robert G. Eastman Eastman & Associates, LLC P.O. Box 180 Charleston, SC 29402

Hand

-Delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 

# WD

Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
#### Brickajlik v. Brickajlik

*429
      *Stephen A. Shelly,*for plaintiff.

*David L. Shenkle,*for defendant.

February 28, 1978

BECKERT, *P.J.,*

—This equity case is before us on plaintiffs petition for rule to show cause why judgment on a stipulation of counsel should not be entered. Defendant has filed an answer and new matter, in response to which plaintiff filed a formal reply. Plaintiff now asks us to make absolute the rule entered on November 25, 1977, and direct the entry of a money judgment in her favor.

We refuse to grant the relief requested, because we find no authority in our rules of civil procedure under which petition and rule could be construed to be the appropriate mechanism for obtaining final judgment. Quite to the contrary, we believe Pa.R.C.P. 1511, governing entry of judgment upon default or admission, contemplates the conventional motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment as provided for under the rules applicable to assumpsit proceedings (Rule 1511 is specifically cross-referenced to Rules 1037 et seq.). Since assumpsit Rules 1034 and 1035 are directed toward the exact end desired by plaintiff, we feel that they should be utilized to the exclusion of the hybrid procedure chosen by plaintiff here.

ORDER

And now, February 28, 1978, the rule to show cause why judgment on a stipulation of counsel *430should not be entered heretofore issued on defendant is hereby discharged.
**Exhibit 24.3**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E.Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher Kirk and eachof them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitutionand resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on hisbehalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell CrowCompany, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), the Corporation’s AnnualReport on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, and to sign any or allamendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto,and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with orwithout the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and everyact and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, asfully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or theirsubstitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

 
|   | /s/  CURTIS F. FEENY |
|--------|----------------------|
|   | Curtis  F. Feeny     |

 

----
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements:



| | 1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-163033) pertaining to the 2009 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan;
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-163032) pertaining to 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan;
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-145482) pertaining to 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan;
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-53692) pertaining to 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1997 Stock Incentive Plan;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 5) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-162020) and related prospectus pertaining to the registration of $125,000,000 of debt securities, common stock, preferred
stock, subscription rights, depositary shares, warrants, purchase contracts and units;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated March 16, 2011, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Novatel Wireless, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Novatel Wireless, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Diego, California

March 16, 2011
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 310 

To amend the Small Business Act to include hospitals serving rural areas 

or areas of persistent poverty in the paycheck protection program, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2021 

Mr. WICKER (for himself and Ms. SMITH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to include hospitals serving rural areas or areas of persistent poverty in the 

paycheck protection program, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘PPP Access for Rural 

5 Hospitals Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF CRITICAL CARE HOSPITALS IN THE 

7 PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

8 (a) ELIGIBILITY OF HOSPITALS WITH MORE THAN

9 ONE PHYSICAL LOCATION.—Section 7(a)(36)(D)(iii)(I) of 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 310 IS

1 the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)(D)(iii)(I)) 

2 is amended by striking ‘‘beginning with 72’’ and inserting 

3 the following: ‘‘beginning with 72 (or, in the case of a crit4 ical care hospital, is assigned a North American Industry 

5 Classification System code beginning with 62)’’. 

6 (b) WAIVER OF AFFILIATION RULES.—Section 

7 7(a)(36)(D)(iv)(I) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 636(a)(36)(D)(iv)(I)) is amended by striking ‘‘beginning 

9 with 72’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘beginning with 72 

10 (or, in the case of a critical care hospital, is assigned a 

11 North American Industry Classification System code be12 ginning with 62)’’. 

13 (c) CRITICAL CARE HOSPITALS DEFINED.—Section 

14 7(a)(36)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

15 636(a)(36)(D)) is amended by adding at the end the fol16 lowing: 

17 ‘‘(ix) CRITICAL CARE HOSPITAL DE18 FINED.—In this subparagraph, the term 

19 ‘critical care hospital’ means— 

20 ‘‘(I) a hospital (as defined in sec21 tion 1861(e) of the Social Security 

22 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(e))) that— 

23 ‘‘(aa) is located in a county 

24 (or equivalent unit of local gov25 ernment) in a rural area, as deVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:08 Feb 27, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S310.IS S310

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 310 IS

1 fined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of 

2 such Act (42 U.S.C. 

3 1395ww(d)(2)(D)); 

4 ‘‘(bb) is treated as being lo5 cated in a rural area pursuant to 

6 section 1886(d)(8)(E) of such 

7 Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 1395ww(d)(8)(E)); or 

9 ‘‘(cc) for the most recent 

10 cost reporting period under sec11 tion 1886(d) of such Act (42 

12 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)), received an 

13 additional payment under section 

14 1886(d)(5)(F) of such Act (42 

15 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)); and 

16 ‘‘(II) a nonprofit or public crit17 ical access hospital, as defined in sec18 tion 1861(mm)(1) of the Social Secu19 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(mm)(1)).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS