alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13573]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[NM-952-08-1420-00]


Filing of Plat of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey described below will be officially filed 
in the New Mexico State office, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, 
New Mexico, on June 11, 1998.

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico

T. 13 N., R. 11 E., accepted May 8, 1998, for Group 921 NM;
    Supplemental Plat for T. 10 N., Range 4 East.

    If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats 
is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
    A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these 
surveys must file a written protest with the NM State Director, Bureau 
of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice 
of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be 
filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest 
is filed.
    Failure to submit the statement of reasons may result in dismissal 
of the protest.
    The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, surveys, and 
subdivisions.
    These plats will be in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115. Copies may 
be obtained from this office upon payment of $1.10 per sheet.

    Dated: May 11, 1998.
John P. Bennett,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 98-13573 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
#### Kellerman, Matter of, v Ross

2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1056

denied
No. 12-7420.

#### Moon, aka Lewis *v.*Lewis.

Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.
#### Williams, Matter of, v Yearwood

1st Dept: 147 AD3d 469

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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60513

FIRST FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDDIE DEAN FORTENBERRY; ET AL,

Defendants;

EDDIE DEAN FORTENBERRY,

Defendant-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:02-CV-00115-EEF)

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

Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM*:

Eddie Dean Fortenberry (“Fortenberry”) appeals the district

court’s denial of her petition for pre-judgment interest. Having

carefully reviewed the record and briefs, we affirm the district

court’s judgment because, although Fortenberry raised five points

of error in her notice of appeal, she did not substantively address
1 See, e.g., Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 n.6

(“Although pro se briefs are to be liberally construed, pro se

litigants have no general immunity from the rule that issues and

arguments not briefed on appeal are abandoned.”) (internal citation

omitted); Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th

Cir. 1988) (same); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (stating that

appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the

reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of

the record on which the appellant relies”).

-2-

any of these issues in her appellate brief, provide us with any

authority in support of her position, or direct us to any pertinent

portions of the record. Generally, issues not briefed are deemed

to be abandoned on appeal, even in the case of a pro se litigant

like Fortenberry.1

Fortenberry’s only argument on appeal is that we should

reverse the district court’s judgment because First Federal Bank

for Savings’s (“First Federal”) attorney obtained it by committing

a fraud on that court. She has not cited to any evidence in

support of her claim and we have found none in the record. We thus

AFFIRM the district court’s judgment denying Fortenberry prejudgment interest.
#### People v Colon

1st Dept: 149 AD3d 498

denied*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

I, Tong Xudong, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of APT Satellite Holdings
Limited;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects of the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of
the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

(4) The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the company and have:

      (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
            disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
            supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
            company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
            us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
            in which this annual report is being prepared;

      (b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
            procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about
            the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of
            the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such
            evaluation; and

      (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
            control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
            covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
            reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal
            control over financial reporting; and

(5) The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the
company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
            or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
            reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the company's
            internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 29, 2005

/s/ TONG XUDONG
-------------------------------------
Tong Xudong
Executive Director and Vice President
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46244

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

JOHN IRVIN ODLE

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: February 12, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years with a minimum period of confinement of two years for possession of a controlled

substance

, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

John Irvin Odle pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance . Idaho Code § 37

-

2732(c) . The district court sentenced O dle to a unified term of seven years with two years

determinate

. Odle appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an

excessive sentence and declining t o retain jurisdiction or place him on probation.

Sentencing is a m atter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Odle ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
F-3









Exhibit 10.2  



APPENDIX TO AGREEMENT 



        WHEREAS,
under a certain Agreement (the “Agreement”) between Elbit Vision Systems Ltd.
(the “Company”) and Mivtach-Shamir Holdings Ltd. (“Mivtach”) dated
January 2, 2006, the Company is to receive a loan from Mivtach and the Company is to issue
to Mivtach a Convertible Note and a Warrant; 



        WHEREAS,
 Mivtach  wishes for all shares to be issued  pursuant to the Agreement be issued to
M.S.N.D. Real Estate Holdings Ltd. (the "Subsidiary"); and 




        WHEREAS,
the Agreement and some of its schedules and exhibits do not currently contemplate the
issuance of shares to the Subsidiary in place of Mivtach. 



        NOW
THEREFORE:




         1.       
          Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning
          set forth in the Agreement. 



         2.       
          All references to Mivtach in the Agreement, its schedules and exhibits,
          including without limitation, the Registration Rights Agreement (the
          “Transaction Documents”), that relate to Mivtach as a holder of the
          Company’s shares, shall mean Mivtach or the Subsidiary, as applicable. 



         3.       
          Mivtach hereby warrants and represents to the Company that it owns, beneficially
          and of record, all of the issued and share capital of the Subsidiary and all the
          rights thereto. 



         4.       
          Mivtach hereby assigns and conveys its rights and obligations under each of the
          Warrant and the Convertible Note to the Subsidiary. 



		
		
		
		
		
	
	

	MIVTACH-SHAMIR HOLDINGS LTD 	ELBIT VISION SYSTEMS LTD. 
	Name: Meir Shamgar / Limor Avidor	Name: Menashe Shohat / Yaky Yanay
	Title: Chairman / COO and	Title: CEO / CFO
	Corporate Secretary	 
	Date: February 21, 2006	Date: February 21, 2006
	  	 
	
	
	M.S.N.D. REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LTD 
	Name: Meir Shamgar / Limor Avidor
	Title: Chairman / COO and
	Corporate Secretary
	Date: February 21, 2006
499 P.2d 162

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Fernando Soza MORENO, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 285.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

July 18, 1972.

*549Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, by Howard L. Fell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for appellee.

Edward P. Bolding, Pima County Public Defender, Howard A. Kashman, former Pima County Public Defender, by William H. Callaway, Deputy Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant.

KRUCKER, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by Fernando Moreno from a sentence of not less than eight nor more than ten years imposed for conviction of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug (heroin) for sale upon his pleading guilty thereto. The plea was the result of a plea bargain. Two other charges, sale of a narcotic drug and assault with a deadly weapon, were dismissed.

At the time of sentencing on October 15, 1971, there was a mitigation hearing and testimony to the effect that appellant could be accepted into a drug rehabilitation program.

The sole question presented on appeal is whether the sentence was excessive under the circumstances.

Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1966), we have examined the record for error and found none. The trial judge imposed a prison sentence within the statutory limits provided by A.R.S. § 36-1002.01. The judge has the discretion to impose a prison sentence or place a defendant on probation. This discretion is to be the exercise of a sound discretion. An abuse occurs when the decision of the judge is characterized by capriciousness or is arbitrary, or by a failure to adequately investigate all facts and circumstances necessary for an intelligent exercise of sound discretion. Shenah v. Henderson, 106 Ariz. 399, 476 P.2d 854 (1970); State v. Douglas, 87 Ariz. 182, 349 P.2d 622 (1960); State v. Oliver, 9 Ariz.App. 364, 452 P.2d 529 (1969).

We have examined the transcript of the proceedings on the entry of the plea of guilty and the mitigation hearing. We note that defendant had also pled guilty to a narcotics offense charged in a separate indictment and was sentenced thereon to a like term to be served concurrently with the sentence challenged here. The sentencing judge stated that because of defendant’s past history and his having been previously placed on probation, probation would not be warranted again. There is no showing of any abuse of discretion and the judgment must be affirmed.

HATHAWAY and HOWARD, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134898 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 134898 

 COA: 278545 
 Wayne CC: 06-005196-01 

JEFFREY RICHARD MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 8, 2008 

Clerk
#### Chomyn, Matter of, v Boller

4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1705

denied
No. 12-825.

#### Strausbaugh *v.*Government Printing Office.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Cerciello v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

11/04/2015

448 MAL (2015)

Denied
160 A.3d 708

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. STANLEY WEISS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Malaysia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | W     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### In the Matter of Signal Perfection, Ltd., Doing Business as SPL Integrated Solutions, Respondent, v Litespeed Electric, Inc., Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 226]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2016, which denied respondent’s motion for leave to file a late notice of settlement of a proposed judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Assuming without deciding that the 60-day time limit of 22 NYCRR 202.48 (a) applies in this case, which involves an order adjudging that respondent was entitled to recover a sum certain and confirming an arbitration award, as modified *(see Farkas v Farkas,*11 NY3d 300, 309-310 [2008]; *Funk v Barry,*89 NY2d 364, 367 [1996]), we find that respondent demonstrated good cause for its delay in submitting a judgment for settlement. Respondent demonstrated good cause by providing affidavits detailing its diligence in following up with its prior counsel, who misled it concerning the status of the case and the need to enter judgment *(see Russo v Russo,*289 AD2d 467 [2d Dept 2001]; *Parisi v McElhatton,*209 AD2d 495 [2d Dept 1994]). In light of the effort expended arbitrating the dispute, opposing the petition to vacate, and pursuing the matter after the court largely confirmed the award, it is clear that respondent did not intend to abandon this action *(see Platt v Parklex Assoc.,*234 AD2d 115 [1st Dept 1996]), and entry of judgment upon an order confirming the arbitration award is required (CPLR 7514).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 181 ) IV-E-5 4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57

PM Sheet 181 of 242P.2

1 . 

# Km,' fr-xll-Z2 T Z 

## -< 5 -5 V UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

## JU N I 6 198 8

MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Meeting Wit hG M Concerning Refueling Tes t Procedur e FROM : TO : Joh

n F . Anderson , Senio r Projec t Manage r Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Docket s A-87-11 , A-85-2 1
On Jun e 8 , 1988 , a brie f meeting wa s hel d wit h representative s o f Genera l Motor s concerning the upcoming tes t procedur e workshop . The attendanc e lis t i s attached . G M wa s concerne d tha t sufficien t tim e be mad e availabl e fo r manufacturer s t o expres s thei r concern s abou t the propose d procedure . W e explaine d tha t w e wer e alread yplanning change s t o th e propose d procedur e in respons e t o comment s receive d during the commen t period . Therefore , i t seeme d mos t appropriat e t o describ e thos e change s first , an d then provid e opportunitie s for input . G M agree d that , give n the situation , thi s wa s probabl yth e bes t approach . Attachmen t 0565 wMeeting wit hG M P. 3

Name Joh n Anderso n GaryHerwic k Ji m Pase k Ric k Rykowsk i Mark Mahe r Che t Franc e Charle s Gra

y Pete r Hutchin s Representing EPA G M G M EP A G M EP A EP A EP A Phon e 668-449 6 575-445 1 947-177 8 668-433 9 685-561 0 668-433 8 668-440 4 668-434 0