alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FREDERICK OWEN HAIMAN,

Appellant,

v.

DEANNA LYNNELL

SHUTES

- HAIMAN,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00361

- CV

Appeal from

383rd District Court

of County, Texas

(TC # )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it has jurisdiction

of the appeal. Rule 26.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an appeal is

perfected in a civil case when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is

signed, unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1. When a motion for new

trial has been filed, notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the judgment is

signed. Id. A notice of appeal is considered timely if filed within fifteen days of the due date

and accompanied by a reasonable explanation for the failure to file on the due date. Verburgt v.

Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

Appellant is attempting to appeal an order signed on A ugust 17, 2012. Appellant timely

filed a motion for new trial. Thus, his notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than- 2

-

November 15, 2012. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until December 10 , 2012.

Because Appellant did not file the notic e of appeal or a motion for extension of time within the

time specified by the Rules of Appellate Procedure , this Court does not have jurisdiction over the

appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

March 2 8 , 2013

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-13-TLS 

 ) 

LAURA A. PLUMB ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 75], filed on February 2, 2017. The Defendant has waived objection 

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings 

and Recommendation [ECF No. 75] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. 

Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 

One (1) of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such 

offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on February 17, 2017. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13146]



[[Page 32894]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB086]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC's) 
Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) will hold a public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, from 9 
a.m. to 1 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar. Details on the 
proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will 
be posted at the MAFMC's website: www.mafmc.org.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; 
www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is for the NTAP 
to discuss (1) charter revisions, (2) restrictor rope research from the 
working group, (3) decoupling survey time series documentation, and (4) 
an update on a wingspread publication.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kathy Collins at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, 
(302) 526-5253, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 15, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-13146 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### Lisa Rusolo, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Ann Rusolo, et al., Respondents, v Skate Odyssey and/or Skate Odyssey of Staten Island, Inc., Respondent, and Killarney, Fabiani & Brody, Appellant.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Killarney, Fabiani & Brody, defendant’s law firm, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.), dated December 3, 1984, which denied its application for leave to withdraw as counsel for the defendant in the above-entitled matter.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A motion to withdraw as counsel is an inappropriate means of testing the propriety of an insurance carrier’s disclaimer of liability on the ground of lack of cooperation by the insured *(see, Brothers v Burt,*27 NY2d 905; *Presley v Williams,*57 AD2d 947; *Monaghan v Meade,*91 AD2d 1014). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
---

March 30, 2012

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | ----------------------------------------------
|    |                                               
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                    
|    |                                               
|    | Consent of Expert                             

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2011, (the Annual Report)
to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the SEC).

I, Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng., hereby consent to the use of my
name in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the
resource estimate in the following technical report (the "Technical
Report"):

- Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska dated
  February 17, 2011

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Report related to me in the Annual
Report.

Yours truly,

/s/ Stephen Hodgson

|                       
|-----------------------
|Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng.
|                       
|Hunter Dickinson Inc.  

---
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549





FORM 10-Q/A




Amendment No. 1




x  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012


or


o  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





Commission file number 0-11550


Pharmos Corporation


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Nevada

36-3207413(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

(IRS Employer Id. No.)





99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 302


Iselin, NJ 08830


(Address of principal executive offices)




Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:(732) 452-9556





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.


Yesx     Noo.




Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes  x     No   o




Indicate by check mark whether registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.





Large accelerated filer o



Non-accelerated filer o

Accelerated filer o



Smaller reporting company x





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).


Yesx  Noo .





As of November 19, 2012, the Registrant had outstanding 60,170,671 shares of its $.03 par value Common Stock.












Explanatory Note





This Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012 of Pharmos Corporation is being filed for the sole purpose of checking the box on the cover page to indicate that Pharmos Corporation is a shell company as defined under the Securities Exchange Act and related rules and regulations.





Except as described above, the remainder of the Form 10-Q is unchanged and does not reflect events occurring after the original filing of the Form 10-Q with the Commission on November 19, 2012.












SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.





PHARMOS CORPORATIONDate: December 10, 2012by:
/s/ Eric W. FangmannEric W. FangmannActing Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50787 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus JUAN GABRIEL SANCHEZ

- HERNANDEZ , Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 2:19

- CR

- 80

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Juan Sanchez

- Hernandez appeals the 57

- month within

- guidelines

* 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 April 16, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50787 Document: 00515384425 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2020No. 19

- 50787

2 sentence and three

- year term of supervised release imposed for his conviction of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)( 1 ). He contends that the sentence enhancement provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional viola

tions of due process because they increase the mandatory minimum sentences based on prior convictions that do not have to be proven to a jury beyond a

rea sonable doubt . He concedes that the issue of whether his eligibility for a n enhancement under § 1326(b) must be proved to a jury is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998) . He seeks only to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he maintains, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider th e issue.
The g overnment move s for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file its brief. Summary affirmance is appropriate whe re , among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162

- 63 (5th Cir. 1969). In A lmendarez

- Torres , 523 U.S. at 239

− 47, the Court held that for a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent Supr eme Court decisions did not overrule Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

− 26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, Sanchez

- Hernandez’s argument is foreclosed.
T he motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The motion for an extension is DENIED. Case: 19-50787 Document: 00515384425 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2020
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6805

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DANIEL EDUARDO PINEDA-ZELAYA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00100-D-5; 7:13-cv-00134-D)

Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: December 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Eduardo Pineda-Zelaya, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon 

James, Tobin Webb Lathan, Seth Morgan Wood, Ethan A. Ontjes,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Eduardo Pineda-Zelaya seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue 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, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Pineda-Zelaya has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13068]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Claims Adjudication Commission, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in accordance with Public 
Law 92-463, gives notice that the Veterans' Claims Adjudication 
Commission will meet on Wednesday, June 7, 1995, and Thursday, June 8, 
1995, at the Washington, DC. office of the Disabled American Veterans 
(1st floor), 807 Maine Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. The Commission 
shall meet on June, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and on June 8 from 9 a.m. 
to 12 noon.
    The major focus of this meeting will be to provide Commission 
members with an overview of remaining statutory reporting areas the 
Commission is mandated to study. The Commission will receive 
presentations from individuals who have been designated to assist the 
Commission in its study and evaluation in each statutory area. The 
Commission will also receive presentations on certain recommendations 
of the VA Inspector General with regard to appeals processing, customer 
service issues, the DOD/VA Reinvention Partnership, ethical 
considerations for Advisory Committee members, and will address its 
future agenda.
    The meeting is open to the public; however, no specific amount of 
time is allocated for the purpose of receiving oral presentations from 
the public. The Commission will accept appropriate written comments 
from interested parties on the subject matter addressed during the 
meeting. Such comments may be referred to the Commission at the 
following address: Veterans' Claims Adjudication Commission (20C), U.S. 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained by 
contacting the Commission at (202) 275-2142.

    Dated: May 19, 1995.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-13068 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Prepared and filed by St Ives Burrups



 Exhibit 10.58

 		Detroit   New York   Chicago   Dallas



 August 14, 2003



Mr. Raymond Milchovich

  Chief Executive Officer


Foster Wheeler Ltd.

  Perryville Corporate Park

  Clinton, NJ 08809-4000




Re:   Interim

Management and Restructuring Services — Second Amendment




Dear Mr. Milchovich:

This letter represents the Second
Amendment to the agreement dated November 22, 2002
(the “Agreement”) between AP Services, LLC, (“APS”) and Foster
Wheeler Ltd., a Bermuda corporation (the “Company”), to provide interim
management services and to assist the Company in its restructuring. Except
as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain
intact.

We acknowledge that the Company paid a
retainer of $350,000 in accordance with the terms of the Agreement dated
November 22, 2002, as amended on April 7, 2003. As we have discussed, APS hereby requests
 that the retainer be increased by $350,000 to $700,000 and will be subject to the provisions
  as reflected in the Agreement. This amount reflects the current 3-4 week run-rate for
   APS fees and expenses. If the run-rate of fees and expenses is reduced, APS agrees
   to adjust the retainer.

If this Second Amendment meets with your
approval, please sign and return the enclosed copy. We look forward to our continuing
relationship with you.



Sincerely yours,



AP SERVICES, LLC

/s/ Kenneth A. Hiltz

Kenneth A. Hiltz

Principal


	 	Acknowledged and Agreed to:


	 	FOSTER WHEELER LTD.


	 	By: /s/ Raymond J. Milchovich


	 	Its: Chairman, President & CEO


	 	Dated:  8/27/03
LaToya M. McDANIEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7033.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
* 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

OSCAR RENE MONJARAZ-PINTO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10620

D.C. No. 4:10-cr-03612-DCBJJM-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: NOONAN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Oscar Rene Monjaraz-Pinto appeals his conviction for illegal

reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and the resulting sentence of

63 months’ imprisonment. We affirm.

FILED

JAN 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

1. The district court did not err in holding that Defendant failed to make a

prima facie showing of the affirmative defense of duress. Defendant’s fears of

poor treatment by police and prison officials were not akin to persecutors who

"figuratively held a gun to his head." United States v. Vasquez-Landaver, 527

F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2. As Defendant now concedes, the district court correctly applied the 16-

level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. United States v. Flores-Mejia, 687

F.3d 1213, 1215–16 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Bonilla-Montenegro, 331

F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003).

3. Defendant’s sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range was

substantively reasonable. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

AFFIRMED.
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM document 1-4 filed 08/05/14 page 1 of 1
Kenneth HETTEL, DOC #575869, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4221

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00267-WCL-RBC   document 4   filed 08/13/14   page 1 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00267-WCL-RBC   document 4   filed 08/13/14   page 2 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00267-WCL-RBC   document 4   filed 08/13/14   page 3 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00267-WCL-RBC   document 4   filed 08/13/14   page 4 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00267-WCL-RBC   document 4   filed 08/13/14   page 5 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00267-WCL-RBC   document 4   filed 08/13/14   page 6 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00267-WCL-RBC   document 4   filed 08/13/14   page 7 of 8

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00267-WCL-RBC   document 4   filed 08/13/14   page 8 of 8