alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Uradni list C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-1045
  doi:10.3000/19771045.CA2014.011.slv |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 11A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 5715. januar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1045

doi:10.3000/19771045.CA2014.011.slv

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 11A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 5715. januar 2014

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Popravki |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Popravek razpisa prostega delovnega mesta izvršnega direktorja Evropske železniške agencije (ERA) v Franciji (začasni uslužbenec – razred AD 14) – COM/2014/10345 (UL C 6 A, 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

Popravki

2014/C 011A/01

Popravek razpisa prostega delovnega mesta izvršnega direktorja Evropske železniške agencije (ERA) v Franciji (začasni uslužbenec – razred AD 14) – COM/2014/10345 (UL C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

(UL C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

1

PREGLED NATEČAJEV UL C A

Spodaj je naveden seznam UL C A, objavljenih v tekočem letu.

Če ni drugače navedeno, so bili UL objavljeni v vseh jezikovnih različicah.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

Popravki

| 15.1.2014 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 11/1

---

Popravek razpisa prostega delovnega mesta izvršnega direktorja Evropske železniške agencije (ERA) v Franciji

(začasni uslužbenec – razred AD 14)

COM/2014/10345

(
  Uradni list Evropske unije C 6 A z dne 10. januarja 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

Stran 4, „Prijavni postopek“, povezava v tretjem odstavku se glasi:

„https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/“.

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 10, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00535

- CV

David Rebolloso, Appellant

v.

Terry Cortez

- Vega, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on August 17, 2015

. Having

reviewed the record , the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted his appeal by failing to

pay or make arrangements to pa y for the clerk’s record and did not comply with a notice from

the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<PAGE>

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT              Exhibit 21.1

          The National Capital Companies, Inc.
          National Capital, LLC
          National Capital Merchant Group, Ltd.
          Travis Morgan Securities, Inc.
          National Capital Asset Group, Inc.
          National Brokers & Distributors, Inc.
          Cornerstone Capital Management, Inc.
          AISCO Holdings, Ltd.
          American Investment Services, Inc.
          AISCO Trading, Inc.
          AISCO Agencies, Inc.
          AISCO Futures, Inc.
          Dunhill Capital Management, Inc.
          Facilities Financial, Inc.
From: Charles Ball [mailto:CBall@emissionsandsilencers.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 4:28 PM

To: nelson.brad@ecrweb.com

Subject: Oxidation catalyst quote

Brad, here is a general price quotation for an oxidation silencer/converter. 

The price is based on a

standard horizontal silencer/converter for a 500hp engine, so less the horse 

power the smaller the

silencer/converter and the lower the silencer/converter price. If you have 

any other question,

contact me at anytime.

"Affordable and efficient emission reduction solutions"

www.emissionsandsilencers.com

Charles Ball

Engineering Manager

cball@emissionsandsilencers.com

20322 Hufsmith-Kohrville Rd.

Tomball, TX 77375

Office: 832-559-6505

Cell: 313-920-5099
#### Ruben TAMRAZYAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-70192

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Sassoun Nalbandian, Attorney, Nalban-dian Law, A Professional Corporation, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Lisa Morinelli, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

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 **

Ruben Tamrazyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C, § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. *Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Tamrazyan’s contention that.the BIA erroneously concluded it lacked authority to reopen sua sponte is not supported by the record, where the BIA cited to *Matter of Compean,*25 I, & N. Dec. 1 (AG 2009), indicating that it had the discretion to consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on conduct that occurred after a final order of removal. *See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (the agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies relevant case law in rendering its decision). To the extent Tamrazyan challenges the BIA’s decision not to exercise its discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review that determination. *See Bonilla,*840 F.3d at 588 (court has jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning for legal or constitu*601tional error; the court has no jurisdiction to review a sua sponte determination made against the correct legal background).

We deny Tamrazyan’s request to recall the mandate and reinstate his prior petition for review, *Tamrazyan v. Holder,*Case No. 07-71144, where he does not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to warrant exercise of our sua sponte authority. *See Calderon v. Thompson,*523 U.S. 538, 549-50, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998) (power to recall a mandate can be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances); *Nevius v. Sumner,*105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996) (declining to recall a mandate where there was no claim that the prior decision was erroneous, but to present new claims).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.13.2  


 
 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
  ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC.
  NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN    
  


        Section 1.3(a) of the Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety: 


"(a)
Subject to any adjustments made pursuant to Section 1.3(c), the aggregate number of shares of Stock that may be issued under the Plan shall be 60,600." 









QuickLinks


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC. NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN
#### John Patten, Respondent, *v.*William J. Stitt, Appellant. Same, Respondent, *v.*Same, Appellant.

Where, upon appeal to this court from an order granting a new trial in an equity case, the order is affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant “ without costs to either party,” this disposes of all the costs in the action, and an insertion by respondent of costs in the judgment entered upon the remittitur is irregular.

A motion to correct the judgment is the proper remedy.

Whether an appeal from the judgment is proper in such case, *quere.*

(Argued December 17, 1872;

decided December 24, 1872.)

These were motions to dismiss appeals. The first appeal was from an order of General Term, affirming order of Special Term, denying defendant’s motion to correct judgment by striking out costs. The second appeal was from judgment of General Term, affirming judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a remittitur from this court.

The action was an equitable one to obtain an injunction. It was decided below in favor of defendant. Upon appeal the General Term reversed the judgment and granted a new trial.

Upon appeal to this court the order was affirmed and' judgment absolute ordered against defendant, that they be perpetually enjoined, etc., “ without costs to either party.” Plaintiff taxed his costs below in the action, and the amount was inserted in the judgment entered upon the remittitur. Whereupon defendant moved- to correct the judgment by striking out the costs, and also appealed therefrom.

*592
      *O. E. Lyon*for the appellant.

*Oha/rles Jones*for the respondent.

Rapallo, J.

The decision of the court was very plain that the absolute and final judgment, ordered in pursuance of the stipulation on the appeal, should be without costs. The remittitur conformed to the decision in that respect. All costs which previously were dependent upon the event of the action were disposed of by this final result. The plaintiff was irregular, therefore, in inserting costs of the action in the judgment entered upon the remittitur, and the motion to correct the judgment should have been granted. The motion to dismiss the appeal from the order is therefore denied, with ten dollars costs of opposing the motion.

Whether an appeal from the judgment is a proper remedy in such a case it is not necessary now to decide. We have held that no appeal will lie from a judgment which conforms *to the*remittitur. When the judgment varies *from the*remittitur, a different question may be presented; but as the defendant can obtain all the relief to which he is entitled under the appeal from the order, we have concluded to dismiss the appeal from the judgment. As the question is novel and the proceedings were occasioned by the irregularity on the part of the plaintiff, the dismissal is without costs' to either party, either of the appeal or of the motion.

All concur.

Motion to dismiss appeal from order denied.

Appeal from judgment dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 2000
SECOND QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,807
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          11,766
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,093
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    430,133
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,865
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,851
<LOANS>                                        368,282
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 869,072
<DEPOSITS>                                     502,615
<SHORT-TERM>                                   152,977
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,556
<LONG-TERM>                                    123,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 869,072
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,670
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               15,700
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                29,370
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,721
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,693
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,677
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      360
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 183
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,620
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,620
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,500
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.34
<LOANS-NON>                                        981
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,731
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       69
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,029
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,029
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Holder, Howard" <HHolder@rrienergy.com>

Date: 7/20/2010 10:35 AM

Subject: Re: Extension Request - RRI Energy Choctaw Station

Attachments: pic06923.jpg

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire for the RRI Energy's Choctaw County Generation

Station. Your request for extension has been denied. The deadline for

your plant to submit Version 4 of the questionnaire remains 90 days

after receipt.

If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric

questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at

steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic06923.jpg)

 

 From: "Holder, Howard" <HHolder@rrienergy.com> 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Cc: "Ellis, Tony" <TEllis@rrienergy.com>, "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com>, 

"Frank, Stephen" 

 <SFrank@rrienergy.com>, <DIANE.R.MARTINI@Sargentlundy.com> 

 

 Date: 06/23/2010 04:41 PM 

 Subject: Extension Request - RRI Energy Choctaw Station 

Dear Ms. Alicea,

In reference to the Steam Electric ELG Questionnaire for RRI Energy’s

Choctaw County Generating Station please find the attached Request for

Extension letter. Also, please feel free to contact myself or Tony

Ellis (662.547.7012) for follow up or clarification.

Best Regards,

Howard Holder

General Manager

RRI Energy Choctaw Station

662.547.7017

601.562.0727 cell

 [attachment "RRI Choctaw Extension Request Letter.pdf" deleted by

Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7100

DUANE HARRISON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. BRYAN STIRLING, Commissioner South Carolina Department of Corrections; KEVIN FORD, Acting Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 4:18

- cv - 02373

- CMC )

Submitted : November 19, 2019 Decided: November 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Duane Harrison, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Duane Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (20 12). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Harrison that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filin g of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Because Harrison failed to file objections, he has waived appellate review of the district court’s order. Harrison also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration

. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “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 district 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, the3 prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S.
at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harrison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-75 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,433,000 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,252,000 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       148,000 
<INVENTORY>                                              0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,148,000 
<PP&E>                                           7,866,000 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,024,000 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,333,000 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,273,000 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0   
<COMMON>                                           113,000 
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,708,000 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,333,000 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,425,000 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,614,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 294,000 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,425,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (37,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,462,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,462,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.13)
                                                         


</TABLE>
#### William BROWN, Jr.; B & M Hitech Electric, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOMPKINS BUILDERS, INC.; S. B. Ballard Construction Company; T. K. Davis Construction Company; Watson Electrical Construction Company, LLC; David Brown; David Collins; Richard Allard, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1025

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

William Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jaime Brett Wisegarver, HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

*779Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Brown, Jr., and B & M Hitech Electric appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the Plaintiffs’ motion for an audience and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Brown v. Tompkins Builders, Inc.,*No. 3:16-cv-00599-REP, 2016 WL 7131504 (E.D. Va., Dec. 6, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*