alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6091.

#### Curtis James Neeley, Jr., Petitioner v. NameMedia, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 516,

178 L. Ed. 2d 381,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8495.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 584.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16660]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CO-050-1620-00]


Closure of a Road on Public Lands; Colorado

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Closure order for a road in Fremont County, CO.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, effective June 25, 1998, the BLM 
non-system road between the Upper and Lower Grape Creek Wilderness 
Study Areas will be closed to all types of motorized vehicle access and 
travel. The purpose of this closure is to prevent further disturbance 
to soils and vegetation in and near the riparian area, reduce 
sedimentation into Grape Creek and reduce the development of 
unauthorized user-created trails into the Upper and Lower Grape Creek 
Wilderness Study Areas. Authority for this action is found in 43 CFR 
8364.1 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The 3 
mile (approximate) road closure is specifically identified as follows: 
Fremont County, Colorado.
    Begin closure on the BLM system road 6227, located approximately 
\2/10\ of a mile east of Grape Creek in T 20S, R71W Section 8. The road 
closure continues in a westerly direction along the BLM non-system road 
through section 7 and T 20S, R72W Sections 12 and 11, and ends at the 
public/private boundary on the north boundary of the NE of the NE of 
Section 11.

DATES: Effective June 25, 1998 and shall remain in effect unless 
revised, revoked, or amended.

ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land Management, Royal Gorge Resource Area, 3170 
East Main Street, Canon City, CO 81212; Telephone (719) 269-8500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Levi Deike, Area Manager or Diana 
Kossnar, Outdoor Recreation Planner at the Royal Gorge Resource Area at 
the above address and phone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This closure does not apply to emergency, 
law enforcement, and federal or other government vehicles while being 
used for official or emergency purposes, or to any vehicle whose use is 
expressly authorized or otherwise officially approved by BLM. Violation 
of this order is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment as defined in 
43 CFR 8340 and subparts thereof. A copy of this Federal Register 
Notice and a map of the road closure is posted in the Canon City 
District Office.
Donnie R. Sparks,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-16660 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
No. 10-7049.

#### Antoine Jerome Pettiford, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1055, 131 S. Ct. 620,

178 L. Ed. 2d 454,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8875.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 612 F.3d 270.
# C_2013344EN.01004902.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/49

---

Action brought on 18 September 2013 — European Commission v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-502/13)

2013/C 344/86

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation, (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation, (2)

1

2

| — | order Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging that, by subjecting the supply of electronic books to a super-reduced rate of 3 % from 1 January 2012, the national legislation is not compatible with the VAT directive.

According to the Commission, the application of a reduced rate of VAT is incompatible with the wording of Articles 96 and 98 of the VAT directive, in so far as such a rate may be applied only to the supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to that directive. In the absence of express mention of the supply of digital books in that annex, the latter may not enjoy a reduced rate of VAT. That is moreover confirmed by the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 98(2), which explicitly excludes electronically supplied services from the benefit of reduced rates of VAT, and by the adoption by the VAT Committee of guidelines according to which reduced rates of VAT do not apply to the supply of digital books.

The Commission considers also that the reduced rate of 3 %, that is to say a rate which is below the minimum rate of 5 % fixed by Article 99 of the VAT directive, to the supply of digital books, may not be covered by the exception provided for by Article 110 of the VAT directive, or in accordance with Article 114 of that directive.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for the VAT directive (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2614 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2614

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar 
 limitation on employer-provided group term life insurance that can be 
            excluded from the gross income of the employee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2019

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar 
 limitation on employer-provided group term life insurance that can be 
            excluded from the gross income of the employee.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Group Term Life Insurance Increase 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED GROUP 
              TERM LIFE INSURANCE PURCHASED FOR EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 79(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting 
``$375,000''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 79 of such Code is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Inflation Adjustment.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
        beginning after 2019, the $375,000 amount under subsection 
        (a)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
                    ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                    ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined 
                under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which 
                the taxable year begins, determined by substituting 
                `2018' for `2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.
            ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph 
        (1) is not a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded 
        to the nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, George G. Dorin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of GPS Industries, Inc.;

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 the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date:  July 26, 2005                 /s/George G. Dorin
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        George G. Dorin
                                        Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-6752.

#### Darrell Eugene Smith, Petitioner v. West Virginia.

562 U.S. 1034, 131 S. Ct. 579,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8745.

178 L. Ed. 2d 422,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.

Same case below, 225 W. Va. 706, 696 S.E.2d 8.
No. 10-6965.

#### Marc A. Biggs, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1050, 131 S. Ct. 614,

178 L. Ed. 2d 446,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8851.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 355 Fed. Appx. 639.
#### In the Matter of Deirdre M. Price, Appellant, v Howard Jenkins, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 453]

Appeals by the mother from (1) an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Rademaker, J.), dated May 6, 2015, and (2) an order of that court, also dated May 6, 2015. The first order dismissed, without a hearing, the mother’s family offense petition against the father, without prejudice. The second order dismissed, without a hearing, the mother’s petition for modification of an order of custody, with prejudice.

Ordered that the appeal from the order denying the petition for modification of an order of custody is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dismissing the family offense petition *953is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the family offense petition, before a different Judge.

The mother’s appeal from the order dismissing her petition to modify an order of custody must be dismissed as academic, as the subject child has since reached the age of majority and can no longer be the subject of a custody or visitation order *(see Matter of Ring v Ring,*140 AD3d 1075 [2016]; *Matter of Chana J.A. v Barry S.,*135 AD3d 743 [2016]; *Matter of McGovern v Lynch,*62 AD3d 712 [2009]).

The Family Court’s dismissal of the family offense petition prior to the mother’s presentation of evidence and without first making a factual determination as to whether a family offense had been committed was improper. The purpose of a family offense proceeding is to attempt “to stop the violence, end the family disruption and obtain protection” (Family Ct Act § 812 [2] [b]). Where, as here, a petition sets forth factual allegations which, if proved, would constitute a family offense *(see*Family Ct Act § 812 [1]), a hearing must be held and a factual determination made as to whether a family offense was committed *(see Matter of Alfeo v Alfeo,*306 AD2d 471 [2003]). Accordingly, we reinstate the petition and remit the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the petition.

In light of certain remarks made by the Family Court Judge during the course of the proceedings, we deem it appropriate that the family offense petition be heard and determined by a different Judge.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Directors' Compensation Summary



 Exhibit 10-s-1 
  
 DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION SUMMARY 
  
 Our non-employee directors receive a retainer at the rate of $74,000 per year for service on our board of directors, payable
as follows: $37,000 of the retainer is paid in cash (in quarterly installments of $9,250 at the beginning of each quarter) and $37,000 of the retainer is paid as restricted shares of our common stock valued at the closing price of our common stock
on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transactions reporting system on the date this annual retainer payment is made (usually on October 1). Under the Directors Stock Plan, which has been approved by our shareowners, each non-employee director is
granted an option to purchase 10,000 shares of our common stock effective upon election as a director. In addition, each non-employee director is granted an option to purchase 5,000 shares of our common stock on an annual basis immediately after
each annual meeting of our shareowners beginning with the shareowners’ meeting following the first anniversary of Board service. Each director will have the option each year to determine whether to defer all or any part of the cash portion of
his or her retainer by electing to receive additional restricted shares of our common stock valued at the closing price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transactions reporting system on the date the cash portion of the
retainer payment would otherwise be paid.
No. 10-346.

#### Trudy Griffin, Petitioner v. Darrell Hardrick.

562 U.S. 1044, 131 S. Ct. 601,

178 L. Ed. 2d 435,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8903.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 604 F.3d 949.
Amendment No. #3 to the Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan




 Exhibit 10.9(cc) 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO THE 
 PEDIATRIC SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 (As Amended and Restated Effective November 28, 2001) 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 to the PEDIATRIC SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. STOCK OPTION PLAN (as amended and restated November 28, 2001), effective as of August 17,
2004; 
  
 W I T N E S
S E T H 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors of Pediatric Services of America, Inc. (Delaware) (the “Board”) and the shareholders of Pediatric Services of America, Inc. (Delaware) (the “Company”) have approved an amendment and restatement of the Pediatric Services
of America, Inc. Stock Option Plan, effective as of November 28, 2001 (the “Employees Plan”); 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board has the authority in accordance with Section 10.1 of the Plan to amend the Employees Plan further, subject to the terms and conditions
specified in Employees Plan Section 10.2; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the
Board desires to amend the Employees Plan further to permit the administrator the Employees Plan (the “Committee” as defined in Section 2.9 of the Employees Plan), in its sole discretion, to extend the time for the exercise of options
granted under the Employees Plan beyond the period specified in the relevant original option grant under such terms and conditions as it may determine, but in no event beyond the maximum exercise period specified in Section 6.5 of the Employees
Plan; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Plan as
follows, effective as stated above: 
  
 1. Section 6.13 of the
Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 “6.13 Acceleration and Extension of Exercise Period. Notwithstanding anything in this Article 6 to the contrary, the Committee shall at all times have the power (i) to accelerate the vesting date of
Options previously granted under this Plan and (ii) to extend the time for the exercise of Options previously granted under this Plan beyond the period specified in the relevant original Option Agreement and this Plan under such terms and conditions
as it may determine, but in no event beyond the maximum exercise period specified in Section 6.5 of this Plan.” 
  
 2. Except as hereinabove and heretofore amended and modified, the Plan as amended and restated effective November 28, 2001 shall remain in full force and
effect. 
  
 Adopted by the Board of Directors of

 Pediatric Services of America, Inc. on August 17, 2004
No. 10-5171.

#### In re Jimmy Harris, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 253,

178 L. Ed. 2d 258,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7704.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (SEC file no. 333-07786, SEC file no. 333-09516 and SEC
File no. 333-71780) of Zindart Limited and the related prospectuses of our
report dated June 21, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Zindart Limited in this Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2002.



/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO


Hong Kong
June 26, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALISON REYES-ARMAS; DAYRY 

GUILLIBELY POLANCO-ARMAS, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71100 

Agency Nos. A087-998-233 

A087-998-234 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 30, 2021**

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Alison Reyes-Armas (“Reyes-Armas”) and Dayry Guillibely PolcanoArmas, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 5 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-71100 

judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions 

of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the 

extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes 

and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding that Reyes-Armas failed to establish 

membership in a cognizable social group. See Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 482

(9th Cir. 2020) (to demonstrate social group membership, the applicant “must 

establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common 

immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct 

within the society in question”) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 

237 (BIA 2014)); see also Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2016)

(rejecting the proposed social group of “former members of Mara 18 gang in El 

Salvador who have renounced their gang membership”). 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that both

petitioners failed to establish that they would be persecuted on account of a 

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An 
3 15-71100 

alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or 

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, 

the petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

The petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that they failed 

to establish eligibility for CAT protection. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 

1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a 

party’s opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.