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

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 62211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25060]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / 
Notices

[[Page 62211]]

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

Board of Directors Executive Session Meeting

    Meeting: African Development Foundation, Board of Directors 
Executive Session Meeting.
    Time: Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Place: 1400 Eye Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.
    Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012.
    Status:
    1. Closed session, Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 
a.m.
    2. Open session, Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 10:45 a.m. to 12:30 
p.m.

Lloyd O. Pierson,
President & CEO, USADF.
[FR Doc. 2012-25060 Filed 10-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Anthony RANSOM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-3072

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed June 27, 2017

(D.C. No. 6:14-CR-10194-EFM-1) (D. Kansas)

David M. Lind, Colin D. Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joseph Anthony Ransom, Pro Se

Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge

Joseph Ransom, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing *551his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Ransom was convicted by a jury of multiple drug- and firearm-related offenses. After sentencing, defense counsel filed a direct appeal to this court. While that appeal was pending, Ransom filed a pro se Rule 60(b) motion before the district court, which the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ransom timely appealed.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Merida Delgado v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 916, 919 (10th Cir. 2005). The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests a district court of jurisdiction, United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475, 1488 n.6 (10th Cir. 1996), and Rule 60(b) does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction in a criminal case, United States v. Triplett, 166 Fed.Appx. 362, 365-66 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). Ransom has not identified any applicable exception to this general rule, and our independent review reveals none.1 Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction.2

AFFIRMED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgmént is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, *551for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32,1 and 10th Cir, R, 32.1.

1

. Although there is no jurisdictional barrier to consideration of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition while a direct appeal is pending, see United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2006), the district court declined to construe Ransom's motion as a § 2255 petition. Ransom does not challenge that decision on appeal. Krastev v. INS, 292 F.3d 1268, 1280 (10th Cir. 2002) ("Issues not raised on appeal are deemed to be waived.”).

2

. Ransom’s direct appeal was resolved during the pendency of this appeal, see United States v. Ransom, No. 15-3293, 691 Fed.Appx. 504, 2017 WL 1959316 (10th Cir. May 11, 2017) (unpublished) (affirming conviction and sentence), but that does not alter the fact that, at the time Ransom filed his Rule 60(b) motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS  OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1998 FOUND ON
PAGES 3-5 OF THE  COMPANY'S  FORM  10QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               MAR-31-1999 
<PERIOD-START>                                  APR-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998 
<CASH>                                              814,095 
<SECURITIES>                                         10,550 
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3,843,326 
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (226,280)
<INVENTORY>                                               0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4,834,830 
<PP&E>                                            1,564,902 
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (938,734)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7,505,175 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3,822,597 
<BONDS>                                                   0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0 
<PREFERRED>                                               0 
<COMMON>                                            884,289 
<OTHER-SE>                                       18,856,768 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7,505,175 
<SALES>                                           1,022,989 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9,021,374 
<CGS>                                               873,871 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5,426,974 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  180,833 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (628,056) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        122,250 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (505,806) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0 
<CHANGES>                                                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      (505,806) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.06) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.06) 
        


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 21, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00211

- CV

IN RE PEOPLE'S MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS 1, LTD.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

It is so ORDERED on April 21, 2022

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 97

- CVQ

- 00997

- D1 , styled People's Management of Texas 1, Ltd.,

successor in interest to Joe Medina, trustee v. Carlos Gutierrez , pending in the 49th Judicial District Court

, Webb

County, Texas, the Honorable Joe Lopez presiding.
#### J. Henry Esser, Respondent, *v.*Village of Mamaroneck, Appellant.

Argued June 7, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*547
      *Anthony Bansone*for appellant.

*John J. Billon*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### The State v. Bennett.

Appeal: criminal case : record examined.

*Appeal from Black Hawk District Court.*

Filed, March 12, 1888.

No appearance for either party.

Beck, J.

The defendant was convicted upon an indictment for larceny, and appeals to this court. There is no assignment of errors, nor brief or argument in any form, calling our attention to any objections to the proceedings. Upon an examination of the record we have failed to find any error therein. The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.5


 




	
  

  	
  COMMON INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEE
  REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 46637N 10 3 THIS CERTIFIES THAT is
  the owner of FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE CLASS A COMMON STOCK, $0.01 PAR
  VALUE, OF JTH HOLDING, INC. transferable on the books of the Corporation by
  the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate
  properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and
  registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said
  Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by facsimile signatures
  of its duly authorized officers. Dated: PRESIDENT & CEO SECRETARY
  COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. TRANSFER AGENT AND
  REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AMERICAN FINANCIAL PRINTING INCORPORATED –
  MINNEAPOLIS 

  






 















	
  

  	
  THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
  CREATE AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES
  OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK OTHER THAN COMMON STOCK. THE CORPORATION WILL
  FURNISH TO ANY STOCKHOLDER UPON WRITTEN REQUEST SENT TO ITS PRINCIPAL
  EXECUTIVE OFFICES, AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT OF THE RELATIVE
  RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK AS WELL
  AS THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE
  SHARES OF EACH CLASS OR SERIES THEN OUTSTANDING OR AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED.
  The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
  certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
  according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM – as tenants in common
  UTMA – Custodian (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT – as tenants by entireties under
  Uniform Transfers to Minors JT TEN – as joint tenants with right of
  survivorship Act and not as tenants in common (State) Additional
  abbreviations may also be used though not in above list. For value received
  hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND
  ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the capital stock
  represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute
  and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the
  within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated
  X X NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
  WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT
  ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. SIGNATURE GUARANTEED ALL
  GUARANTEES MUST BE MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (SUCH AS A BANK OR BROKER)
  WHICH IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM
  (“STAMP”), THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM
  (“MSP”), OR THE STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALLION PROGRAM (“SEMP”) AND MUST NOT BE
  DATED. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL
  SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the   accompanying   Quarterly  Report  of  Concierge
Technologies,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended
September 30, 2005 (the "Report"),  I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  November 8, 2005

                                             /s/ Allen E. Kahn
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Allen E. Kahn
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.













                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
Transport Airplane Directorate

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.

Renton, Washington 98057-3356

December 21, 2012

Mr. Douglas M. Lane

Director, Regulatory Administration

The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707 MC 03-56

Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Dear Mr. Lane:

We have received your December 12, 2012, petition for exemption from the requirements of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.901(c), Amendment 25-126, and 

25-981(a)(3), Amendment 25-125 for the Models 747-400/-400D/-400F airplanes. The 

exemption, if granted, would allow the planned changes to the Fuel Quantity Indication 

System (FQIS).

This request has been given Docket No. FAA-2012-1324 in the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS). We are in the process of reviewing your request and will 

contact you if we need additional information.

A summary of your petition will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, 

in accordance with the requirements of § 11.85. You will be advised of the agency's 

decision on your petitions as soon as possible.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Mike Dostert by phone at 425-227-2132 or by e-mail at mike.dostert@faa.gov.

Sincerely,

Theresa White

Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service
#### In the Matter of the Application of The N. Y., Lack. *&*Western R. R. Co. *to*Appraise Lands, etc.

*Albert H. Weed,*for app’lt; *Franklin D. Locke,*for resp’t.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 35 N. Y. State Rep., 540.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenny IROEGBU, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10721 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 20, 2017

Kenny Iroegbu, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kenny Iroegbu, federal prisoner # 48132-177, pleaded guilty to one count of aiding or assisting in the preparation or presentation of a false or fraudulent individual income tax return. The district court sentenced him to 36 months of imprisonment and a one-year term of supervised release. It also ordered Iroegbu to pay $323,046 in restitution. He appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence.

The district court determined on March 17, 2017, that Iroegbu’s untimely filing of the notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect. However, according to the website of the Bureau of Prisons, Iroegbu was released from imprisonment on December 16, 2016. “Where a defendant has begun serving a term of supervised release, the appeal of the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion is moot.” *United States v. Booker,*645 F.3d 328, 328 (6th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Iroegbu’s motions to expedite his appeal are DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### William D. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melany GAVULIC; Hurley Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1093

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed August 01, 2017

*399Michael E. Freifeld, Law Office of Glen N. Lenhoff, Flint, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Eric J. Pelton-, Thomas J. Davis, Kienb-aum, Opperwall, Hardy & Pelton, Birmingham, MI, for Defendants-Appellees

BEFORE: NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this employment-discrimination case, plaintiff William Smith, former General Counsel to Hurley Medical Center, appeals the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Hurley and its CEO, Melany Gavulic. The case arises from Hurley’s Board of Managers’ decision to terminate Smith’s employment on Gavulic’s recommendation, which Smith allegés was an act of racial discrimination and retaliation for raising a complaint of racial discrimination against Gavulic. Smith’s complaint alleged four types of claims: a racial discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a First Amendment retaliation claim, and violation of Michigan’s Whistle-Blowers’ Protection Act, M.C.L. § 15.361 et seq., and Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on each claim, and plaintiff appealed.

After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court’s thorough and well-written opinion correctly articulates and applies the applicable law to undisputed facts and that the issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we affirm.
#### Darrin M. GASPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. SANCHEZ, Security Captain at RJDSP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55760

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Darrin M. Gasper, Pro Se

Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Darrin M. Gasper, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for fáilure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act action alleging retaliation and disability discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

*544The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gasper failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[Pjroper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Sapp v. Kimbrell,*623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances under which exhaustion may be excused).

Gasper’s challenge to the district court’s failure to resolve his motion for a preliminary injunction is moot. *See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan,*954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial of a preliminary injunction would have no practical consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).

We reject as meritless Gasper’s contention that the district court erred in failing to return conformed copies of filings.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6242

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. XAVIER HOLDEN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:16

- cr - 00484

- JKB

- 5; 1:18

- cv - 02095

- JKB )

Submitted : June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Xavier Holden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Xavier Holden seeks to appeal the distri ct court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue a bsent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the dis trict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner

mu st demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
PLANTS POTENTIALLY USING PALM AS FEEDSTOCK

PLANT ST CAPACITY (GAL) POTENTIAL

IMPERIUM RENEWABLE WA 100,000,000 25% 25,000,000

GREEN EARTH TX 50,000,000 25% 12,500,000

REG TX 50,000,000 25% 12,500,000

SUN PRODUCTS TX 25,000,000 100% 25,000,000

ORGANIC TX 25,000,000 25% 6,250,000

RBF TX 180,000,000 25% 45,000,000

US BIO GA 25,000,000 25% 6,250,000

GREEN DIESEL TX 40,000,000 25% 10,000,000

METRO NY 100,000,000 25% 25,000,000

GREEN HUNTER TX 105,000,000 25% 26,250,000

700,000,000 28% 193,750,000

Projected provided by American Palm Oil Council, September 1, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

WELLSPAN MEDICAL GROUP,

Respondent

v.

BRIAN MICHAEL, M.D.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 77 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.