alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18666]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Subcommittee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee will meet in closed 
session for one day on July 16, 1998, at the Bonneville Dam, Oregon. 
The purpose of the meeting is to continue discussions on the 
implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. The meeting will begin at 
9:00 a.m. and continue until 3:00 p.m. Agenda items to be discussed in 
this one day retreat include, but are not limited to: review ongoing 
and potential topics for the coming year. The August 6 IAC meeting will 
be again open to the public, location and time will be announced in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding this meeting may 
be directed to Don Knowles, Executive Director, Regional Ecosystem 
Office, 333 SW 1st Avenue, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208 (Phone: 
503-808-2180).

    Dated: July 7, 1998.
Donald R. Knowles,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 98-18666 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
EXHIBIT 21
 List of Subsidiaries
 %Name
    
    Jurisdiction
    
    OwnershipEntertainment Technology Corporation
    
    PA
    
    100%ETC International Corporation
    
    Barbados
    
    100%ETC-PZL Aerospace Industries
    
    Poland
    
    95%ETC-Europe
    
    Great Britain
    
    99%ETC-Delaware
    
    Delaware
    
    100%NASTAR Center Holdings Corporation
    
    Delaware
    
    100%NASTAR Center LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    100%
 46
No. 10-11176.

#### David Louis Aguilar, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 871, 132 S. Ct. 224,

181 L. Ed. 2d 124,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7124.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 10-10344.

#### Harriet A. Mercer, Petitioner v. Albert Bryan, Jr., Commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of Labor, et al.

565 U.S. 834, 132 S. Ct. 136,

181 L. Ed. 2d 56,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5400.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Order entered March 24, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00127-CR

CLARENCE DANNEL DUNNINGTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-80895-2013

ORDER

The Court GRANTS court reporter LaTresta Ginyard’s March 20, 2014 motion for 

extension of time to file the reporter’s record.

We ORDER Ms. Ginyard to file the reporter’s record within THIRTY (30) DAYS from 

the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
No. 10-7804.

#### Rudy Stanko, Petitioner v. Blake Davis, Warden.

562 U.S. 1131, 131 S. Ct. 973,

178 L. Ed. 2d 742,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 313.

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed. See Rule *74339.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).

Same case below, 617 F.3d 1262.
No. 10-9027.

#### Robert Allen Woida, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 828, 132 S. Ct. 122,

181 L. Ed. 2d 45,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5826.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 400 Fed. Appx. 128.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00296

- CR

WILL I E MAJORS, III , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 413th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. F49961

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Willie Majors , III is attempting to appeal his conviction which occurred on July 28, 2016. Majors’s counsel, however, was deployed on active duty with the United States Air Force in August and was unable to arrange for a notice of appeal to be filed with the trial

court. Rather, he arranged only for a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal to be filed with this Court, which was filed on September 9, 2016. Majors ’ s notice of appeal was due on August 27, 2016. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.2(a)(1).

No notice o f appeal has been filed. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke ourM ajors v. State Page 2

jurisdiction. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) . Without one, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Even if we construed the motion for extension of time as the notice of appeal improperly filed in this Court rather than with the trial court clerk , see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(c), we would still not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Although the

mot ion/notice was filed within 15 days of the last day allowed for filing a notice of appeal , see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3, we would still need a second document , filed within that same 15 day window, to serve as the motion for extension of time to file the notic e of appeal. Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522 (“ A court of appeals may grant an extension of time to file notice of appeal if the notice is filed within fifteen days after the last day allowed and, within the same period, a motion is filed in the court of appeals reasonably explaining

the need for the extension of time. ”). We do not have that second document. W hen a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen

- day period but no timely motion for extension
of time is filed, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it

. Id . at 523

. Likewise, when a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is filed within the 15 day period but no notice of appeal is filed within the same 15 day period, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it. See id

.M ajors v. State Page 3

Although counsel has been deployed on active duty which prevented counsel from filing the appropriate documents to initiate the appeal , we have no choice but to

dismiss Majors’ s appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Motion dismissed Opinion delivered and filed September 21 , 2016 Do not publish [CR25]

1 Majors’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is likewise dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
No. 11-5114.

#### Larry McKinney, Petitioner v. Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 890, 132 S. Ct. 270,

181 L. Ed. 2d 159,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5777.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
3.3
                      S H A R E H O L D E R   s e r v i c e s



                                  PH GROUP INC.
                         ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
                                  APRIL 30,1998

                            CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTOR OF ELECTION
          AS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND SECTIONS 2 AND 5
         OF ARTICLE I OF THE AMENDED CODE OF REGULATIONS OF THE COMPANY
                 TO DELETE REFERENCES THEREIN TO "COMMON" SHARES
                   AND TO SUBSTITUTE THEREFOR "VOTING" SHARES


         I, the undersigned Inspector of Election dully appointed by the Board
of Directors of PH Group Inc., (the "Company") to serve at the Annual Meeting of
Stockholders of the Company held at the 2365 Scioto Harper Drive, Columbus, Ohio
on April 30, 1998, do hereby certify that (i) I have conducted the vote at such
meeting upon the resolution for the Approval of the proposal to amend Sections 2
and 5 of Article I of the Amended Code of Regulations of the Company to delete
references therein to "common" shares and to substitute therefor "voting"
shares, (ii) I have counted and tabulated all votes and determined the result of
such amendment, and (iii) the voting results are such that the amendment has
received 1,115,007 votes FOR, 11,462 votes AGAINST and 9,760 votes WITHHELD:
THUS APPROVING THE AMENDMENT to Sections 2 and 5 of Article I.


Dated this 30th day of April, 1998




/s/ Michael J. Lang
---------------------------------
Michael J Lang
Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         1065418
<NAME>                        Key Components, LLC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>                 <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS         3-MOS         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-2000   DEC-31-1999   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-2000   JAN-01-1999   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-2000   DEC-31-1999   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      6,088         4,171             0
<SECURITIES>                                   0             0              0
<RECEIVABLES>                              22,763        19,455             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  472          (511)            0
<INVENTORY>                                23,146        22,372             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           63,432        61,237             0
<PP&E>                                     27,105        26,380             0
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,933)       (7,342)            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            182,051       180,558             0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      22,448        20,201             0
<BONDS>                                    80,000        80,000             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0             0              0
<PREFERRED>                                    0             0              0
<COMMON>                                       0             0              0
<OTHER-SE>                                 10,238         9,411             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              182,051       180,558             0
<SALES>                                    39,529            0          30,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           39,529            0          30,835
<CGS>                                      23,118            0          19,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              31,118            0          25,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (210)           0           (114)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0             0             106
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3,428            0           3,503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             5,130            0           1,856
<INCOME-TAX>                                  303            0             729
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         4,827            0           1,127
<DISCONTINUED>                             (3,078)           0             308
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0             0              0
<CHANGES>                                      0             0              0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,749            0           1,435
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0             0              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0             0              0

<FN>
No EPS for the Company has been calculated as its common stock is privately held
</FN>

</TABLE>
No. 10-10790.

#### Gabe Drapel, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 849, 132 S. Ct. 172,

181 L. Ed. 2d 84,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6004.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 418 Fed. Appx. 630.
No. 10-10906.

#### Tony A. Warren, Petitioner v. Alan Finnan.

565 U.S. 856, 132 S. Ct. 188,

181 L. Ed. 2d 96,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6160.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
*August 3, 1999 DRAFT*

DoD 4000.25-7-M

DLM 4000.25, Volume 6, June 5, 2012

# APPENDIX 2.2

**SERVICE CODES**

## 

**AP**

AP2.2-1

APPENDIX 2.2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11262 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DEBORAH LEE SYPNIEWISKI, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-28-1

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Deborah Lee Sypniewiski was convicted by a jury of counterfeiting obligations of the United States and possessing counterfeit obligations. Sypniewiski argues that the district court erred in enhancing her sentence based on her manufacture of counterfeit federal reserve notes pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2)(A) and (b)(3) (2004). Sypniewiski argues that the enhancement was inapplicable under application note 4, which states that the enhancement does not apply where the items manufactured “are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikelyNo. 05-11262 -2- to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny.” § 2B5.1, comment. (n.4). Based on the personal inspection of the notes by the district court judge, the evidence regarding the number of times the bills were successfully and unsuccessfully passed, and the testimony of various witnesses including a Secret Service agent, the district court found that the counterfeit notes were not so obviously counterfeit that they were unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny. The district court’s finding was plausible in light of the record as a whole and thus was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Wyjack , 141 F.3d 181, 183-84 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Bollman , 141 F.3d 184, 187 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
No. 10-10701.

#### Jimmy Carter, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 845, 132 S. Ct. 161,

181 L. Ed. 2d 75,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5903.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 411 Fed. Appx. 242.
Exhibit 10.72


 


EXTENSION AND CONFIRMATION AGREEMENT


 


Made this 22nd day of February 2012 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Viral Genetics,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and C. Everett Koop, MD (“Consultant”).


 


WHEREAS Company and Consultant are party to a Consulting Agreement dated June 1, 2008 (the
“Agreement”) and which they had agreed to extend for additional one year terms on the same terms and conditions
described therein on or about each of May 31, 22009, 2010, and 2011, and are mutually desirous of memorializing those
extensions, and further desire to extend the Agreement for an additional year through May 31, 2013.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and lawful consideration and of the mutual covenants contained herein and
the mutual benefits to be derived hereunder, the parties agree as follows:


 


1. Consultant is owed and Company shall deliver 400,000 shares of common stock of Company
(“Shares”) for each of the years of service ending May 31. 2009, 2010, and 2011 for a total of 1,200,000 Shares.


 


2. The Term of the Consulting Agreement is hereby extended until May 31, 2013 on the same terms and conditions.


 


3. All other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement, including, without limitation, those
in Exhibit A therein entitled “Viral Genetics Intellectual Property Agreement”, shall continue in full force and effect.


 


AGREED and entered into as of the date affixed hereof.


 


COMPANY:


VIRAL GENETICS, INC.


 


By: /s/ Haig Keledjian                       


Duly Authorized Officer


 


CONSULTANT:


 


/s/ C. Everett Koop                   


C. Everett Koop, MD
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. ) ) DOCKET OST-2008-0313 for renewal of exemption authority ) (Morelia-Chicago) ) __________________________________________)

AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION OF AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

John R. Mietus, Jr. Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 (202) 747-5212 (240) 396-5362 fax john@mietuslaw.com

Counsel for AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V.

February 1, 2013BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. ) ) DOCKET OST-2008-0313 for renewal of exemption authority ) February 1, 2013 (Morelia-Chicago) ) __________________________________________)

AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION OF AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION

By application dated November 30, 2012, Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de

C.V. ("Aeromexico") requested renewa l of the above-captioned exemption

authority to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons,

property, and mail between Morelia, Mexico and Chicago, Illinois. That

request was included in an application that aggregated renewal applications

from ten separate dockets.

Aeromexico respectfully amends that application to withdraw its

application for renewal of Morelia-Chica go authority, leaving no unexpired

authority in Docket OST-2008-0313. (This is not intended to affect

Aeromexico’s pending renewal requests in the remaining nine dockets

referred to in the November 30 document.)
No. 10-10818.

#### Valeriy Kostraba, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 851, 132 S. Ct. 176,

181 L. Ed. 2d 87,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6266.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 402 Fed. Appx. 151.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30497 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GLENN TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CA-376-H

- - - - - - - - - - May 21, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Glenn Taylor, federal prisoner # 22852-034, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Taylor argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to investigate his allegation that he was working as a confidential informant at the time the offense was committed and that the district court abused its discretion in denying the § 2255 motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. To the extent that Taylor’s § 2255 motion can be construed as raising aNo. 96-30497 -2- challenge to the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, a claim which the district court held to be procedurally barred, Taylor has abandoned this claim by failing to assert it on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Taylor has demonstrated neither deficient performance norprejudice in connection with his ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 689- 94 (1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Bartholomew , 974 F.2d 39, 41 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
No. 11-5278.

#### Libne Sacor-Quijiux, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 899, 132 S. Ct. 291,

181 L. Ed. 2d 175,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5689.

October 3, 2011.

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

*176Same case below, 424 Fed. Appx. 264.
No. 10-10706.

#### Gabriel Kish, III, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 845, 132 S. Ct. 161,

181 L. Ed. 2d 76,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6043.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 424 Fed. Appx. 398.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Gepner, Petitioner,*

No. 91966-6.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 72017-1-1, June 8, 2015, 2015,188 188 Wn. App. 1010. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1996 and the Statement Of Income 
for the year ended December 31, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by 
refenence to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         368,152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               391,983<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,727,494<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,727,494<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,727,494
<SALES>                                      6,018,750<F4>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,027,397<F5>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,337,886<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,689,511
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,689,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,689,511
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1,118<F7>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1,118<F7>
<FN>
<F1>Includes prepaid rent
<F2>Includes remaining unamortized leasehold at book value
<F3>Partnership capital
<F4>Rental income
<F5>Includes dividend income
<F6>Leasehold rent supervisory fees of and amortization of leasehold
<F7>Earnings per $10,000 participation unit, based on 3,300 participation 
    units outstanding during the year
</FN>
        

</TABLE>