alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 18, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between December 2014 and February 2015 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items along with a brief description of each, is available at                     *http://www.astm.org.*

                    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to                           ( print page 17785)                        section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).                

                    The last notification with the Attorney General was filed on December 9, 2014. A notice was filed in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 31, 2014 (79 FR 78908).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2015-07527 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE CODE P
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00009

- CR

JOHNATHAN LEE WOOD, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 1323123

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Johnathan Lee Wood has filed a notice o f appeal from his conviction of continuous sexual abuse of a child under fourteen and the resulting sentence of life imprisonment. The issue before us is whether Wood perfected his appeal. We conclude that he did not and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Sentence was imposed in this matter October 17, 2013, and Wood timely

- filed a motion for new trial on November 14, making his notice of appeal due January 15, 2014. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 26.2. Wood’s notice was not filed until January 21, 2014, and Wood did not file a motion seeking an extension of the deadline for filing his notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 10.5(b),
26.3. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court ’ s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (citing Rodarte v. State , 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interprets Rule 26.3 of the Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure strictl y to require an appellant in a criminal case to file his notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time within the fifteen

- day period for filing a late notice of appeal. Id. According to the high court, “When a notice of appeal is filed within the f ifteen

day period but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.” Id. ; see also Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam)

. We notified Wood by letter dated February 11, 2014, of this jurisdictional defect and provided him an opportunity to cure the defect or otherwise demonstrate to the Court how it had3 jurisdiction over the appeal. We received no response from Wood. We note that Wood recently submitted a lengthy brief to th is Court raising numerous points of error; however, nowhere in that brief does he address the dispositive jurisdictional issue. Because Wood failed to file a motion for extension of time in addition to his late

- filed notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: March 20 , 2014 Date Decided: March 21 , 2014 Do Not Publish
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
**345 CA 16-01647**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

RYAN M. FORRESTEL, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MARGUERITA M.C. JONKMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 3.)

MARGUERITA M.C. JONKMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
JOHN P. PIERI, BUFFALO, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Tracey A. Bannister, J.), entered December 21, 2015. The order denied the recusal motion of defendant. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Same memorandum as in Forrestel v Jonkman ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 24, 2017]).

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      113
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   229
<PP&E>                                              57
<DEPRECIATION>                                      51
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,822)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,966
<SALES>                                            116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   126
<CGS>                                               63
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       63
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    78
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS RAMIREZ MEJIA,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73909

Agency No. A093-323-519

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued August 31, 2016 Submitted December 7, 2016

Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS,** District Judge.

 

Jose Luis Ramirez Mejia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

DEC 07 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
We grant the petition for review on the issue of withholding of removal, deny on

the issue of the CAT, and remand. 

With regard to withholding of removal, we conclude that the BIA

erroneously engaged in factfinding when it upheld the IJ decision denying

withholding of removal based on the BIA’s own finding that the record contained

no evidence of a motive for the abuse suffered by patients in Mexican mental

institutions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv); Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056,

1062-63 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Whether the BIA applied the correct standard of review

to the IJ’s decision is a question of law, and is thus reviewed de novo.”); see also

Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2012) (BIA improperly

resolved issues of fact that were unaddressed by the IJ). The IJ did not make an

express finding on this question. To the extent the BIA believes that this factual

information is material, it must remand to the IJ to make the finding. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(d)(3)(iv); Rodriguez, 683 F.3d at 1173. Accordingly, we remand to the

BIA to review the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal under the correct standard

of review. 

With regard to the CAT claim, Mejia did not establish that it is more likely

than not that he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a Mexican

official if removed to Mexico. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 989 (9th

2
Cir. 2008) (finding that the conditions in the Mexican mental health system did not

exist out of a deliberate intent to inflict harm). Accordingly, we affirm the BIA’s

denial of relief under the CAT. 

Petition for Review GRANTED and REMANDED in part; DENIED in part.

3
Exhibit 10-11


Amendment to Consulting Agreement between Registrant
and The Tudog Group.


 


 


 


December 31, 2012


 


To Whom it May Concern,


 


This letter is to serve as an addendum to the agreement between
The Tudog Group (“Tudog”) and Alternative Fuels Americas (“AFAI”) dated December 14, 2009 and amended January
2011.


 


Tudog hereby agrees to reduce its monthly for the services of
AFAI Chief Executive Officer, Craig Frank, from $15,000 per month to $7,000 per month, effective immediately.


 


Tudog further agrees that all fees will be postponed on a non-accrued
basis, to resume only once AFAI is sufficiently funded.


 


This letter supersedes all other agreements between the party
and effects only the clauses concerning compensation.


 


 


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ David Feingersch


 


David Feingersch


Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries

# AGENCY:

Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

# ACTION:

Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on April 27, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at The Savitz Organization, 1845 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 703-414-3163.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at The Savitz Organization, 1845 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).

A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.

Dated: March 25, 2015.

Patrick W. McDonough,

Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries. 

[FR Doc. 2015-07335 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Leister v. Plaga

*Bryan A. Snapp,*for plaintiff.

*Albert L. Blackman, Jr.,*for defendant.

July 6, 1977

WALSH, *J.,*

This case is before the court for disposition pursuant to Rule *266, upon plaintiff’s amended motion to strike and excep*381tions to amended report and award of arbitrators pursuant to Rule 908 (d).

The pertinent facts are as follows: Plaintiff instituted an action in trespass for property damage as a result of defendant’s alleged negligent operation of an automobile. On October 6, 1976, an arbitration hearing was held and an award of arbitrators was duly filed on this same day, signed by all three members of the board, in favor of plaintiff for the amount of $450. An amended report and award of arbitrators was subsequently filed with the office of the prothonotary on October 22, 1976, in favor of defendant. On November 10, 1976, plaintiff filed an amended motion to strike and exceptions to the amended award of arbitrators which is now before the court.

Plaintiff contends that the amended award of the board of arbitrators, filed 16 days following its initial award, is a nullity and must be stricken and vacated. We agree.

The award of a board of arbitrators, if not appealed from in accordance with the act, has the effect of a verdict upon which a judgment may be entered (section 34.1 of the Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 715, as added by the Act of June 13, 1957, P. L. 302, 5 P. S. § 58.1); Damon and Foster v. Berger, 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 165, 155 A.2d 388 (1959). The court concludes that the initial award of the board of arbitrators, upon its being signed, filed, docketed and indexed, had the full force and effect of a verdict.

Where an award is regular on its face, and it does not there appear that the arbitrators have exceeded their authority, it is binding on the losing as well as the winning party. “Standard Pa. Pract. *382598 § 150”. The court concludes that the board of arbitrators was without power to modify or amend the original and duly filed award: Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania v. Blumberg, 29 D. & C. 2d 31, 35-36 (Montg. Co. 1962), and that the amended award filed on October 22, 1976, is a nullity which must be stricken and vacated: Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania v. Blumberg, supra; “Standard Pa. Pract. 597 § 149”.

Since the court has concluded that the amended award is a nullity because the arbitrators lacked power to make such award, a discussion of the plaintiff ’ exceptions under Rule 908 (d) will not be necessary.

ORDER

And now, July 6, 1977, pursuant to Rule *266, it is ordered that plaintiff ’ amended motion to strike the amended award of the arbitrators, as filed on October 22, 1976, is granted and that the amended award of the axbirtators be stricken and vacated.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0172]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled, “Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments,” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,                         *PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On February 5, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0783. The approval expires on March 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain*.                

Dated: March 30, 2015.

Leslie Kux,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-07655 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary consolidated financial information extracted from
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           77,653,000
<SECURITIES>                                     22,933,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                102,016,000
<PP&E>                                            5,467,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (1,303,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  124,313,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            22,209,000
<BONDS>                                             153,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                             170
<COMMON>                                             29,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      101,921,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    124,313,000
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 71,391,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (67,271,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (67,271,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (67,271,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (2.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (2.93)
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATEOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF**

**VYYO INC.**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Vyyo Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Wayne H. Davis, as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Robert K. Mills, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of hisknowledge, 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Wayne H. Davis            |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Wayne Davis                   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |
| August 14, 2007               |
|                          |
| /s/ Robert K. Mills |   |
| Robert K. Mills     |
| Chief Financial Officer       |
| August 14, 2007               |

 

----