alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Form I-9 Resources

Explore multimedia content to learn about what the employment eligibility verification process means to you, including your rights, your roles, your employer's responsibilities, and your privacy.

Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification: Summary of Changes to Form and Instructions  (PDF, 185.1 KB)

Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification Employee Information Sheet  (PDF, 486.64 KB)

Status of Citizens of the Freely Associated States of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands  (PDF, 209.34 KB)

Status of Citizens of the Republic of Palau  (PDF, 166.02 KB)

Form I-9 and E-Verify Guidance during Hurricane Season  (PDF, 136.81 KB)

1 - 5 total rows

-  Back
- Next 

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JESSICA ALYSE MORENO,

Appellant,

v.

ZAPP CREDIT SOLUTIONS OF SAN 

ANTONIO, LLC, and RUBEN VICTOR 

JUAREZ, JR.,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00288-CV

Appeal from the

the 57th District Court 

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC#2022-CI-24860)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. 

We find that Appellant has yet to file an appellant’s brief. Appellant filed a notice of an 

accelerated appeal on September 29, 2023. The Bexar County District Clerk filed a notice of late 

record on October 10, 2023. Following the grant of extensions, the clerk’s record was filed on 

October 20, 2023, while the reporter’s record was filed on October 23, 2023. Accordingly, 

1 This case was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the 

Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of 

Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2

Appellant’s brief was originally due on November 12, 2023. See TEX.R. APP. P. 38.6(a)(1) (stating 

that in an accelerated appeal, an appellant must file a brief within 20 days after the later of the date 

the clerk’s record or reporter’s record is filed). Nevertheless, on November 10, 2023, Appellant 

thereafter filed, and this Court granted, a first motion for extension of time for Appellant’s brief, 

thereby extending the briefing deadline to November 27, 2023.

On December 7, 2023, the Clerk of this Court sent a letter to Appellant, via her email 

address, notifying her it appeared that she no longer wished to pursue this appeal, as neither an 

appellant’s brief nor a motion for leave to file a late brief had yet been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8. The letter indicated the Court would submit this case for dismissal after ten days had passed 

unless any party could show grounds for continuing the appeal. On December 22, 2023, after no 

response had been received, the Clerk of this Court sent a second notice repeating the same 

information, but this time the notice was sent via U.S. Mail. As before, the letter gave notice of 

our intent to dismiss for want of prosecution unless grounds for continuing the appeal were 

provided. As of this date, more than ten days have passed from the Court’s latest notice, and 

Appellant has yet to file either an appellant’s brief or a motion for leave to file a late brief. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

January 8, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
#### REHREY v. CITY OF NEWBURGH.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Municipal Corporations—Defective Streets—Plan oe Construction.

The plan of construction of a sidewalk, whereby water flows over and freezes on it, is not a nuisance for which the city is liable to one who fails thereon, where no other negligence than the plan of construction is charged against the city. Urquhart v. City of Ogdensburg, 91 N. Y. 67, followed.

eAppeal from circuit court, Orange county.

‘Action by George Rehrey against the city of Newburgh for injuries caused by falling on an icy sidewalk at á point where the • gutter overflowed. There was a judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

William D. Dickey, for appellant.

C. L. Waring, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

It is perfectly clear that this case cannot be reversed upon the ground that there was any question of negligence that ought to have been submitted to the jury. Indeed, the appellant does not claim that any negligence on the part .of .the city was proved, but he claims that the construction of the sidewalk as constructed constituted a nuisance for which the defendant was liable. This contention has never had any foundation in reason or law.' Such a claim would impose upon every city that constructed a sidewalk to make it level from one end to the other. But it is unnecessary to state any reason for the affirmance' of the judgment herein further than to say that it falls under the principle decided in the case of Urquhart v. City of Ogdensburg, 91 N. Y. 67. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 32(b)

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert A. Clausen, Chief Financial Officer of Solutia Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
          period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
          Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.

Dated: April 30, 2004

                                                /s/ ROBERT A. CLAUSEN
                                                -----------------------
                                                Robert A. Clausen
                                                Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Solutia Inc.
and will be retained by Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Smith Barney Potomac Futures Fund L.P. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|           |                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                        |
|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership. |

/s/ David J.Vogel                        

DavidJ. VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President andDirector     

Date: May 10,2005

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5873 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5873

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain 
                    Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2010

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Kind, Ms. Moore of 
   Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Petri, Mr. Obey, and Mr. Kagen) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain 
                    Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN RHETT W. SCHILLER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Captain 
Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert E. GIBBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-2157.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 11, 2011.

Decided: April 20, 2011.

Robert E. Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Neal Fowler, Assistant United States Attorneys, Tobin Webb Lathan, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert E. Gibbs appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Postmaster General John Potter’s motion to dismiss Gibbs’ civil action arising out of his former employment with the United States Postal Service. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.*
      *Gibbs v. Potter,*No. 4:09-cv-37-DAN, 2010 WL 3811802 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 32(a)

  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffry N. Quinn, Chief Executive Officer of Solutia Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully
                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 7, 2007

                                        /s/ Jeffry N. Quinn
                                        -------------------
                                        Jeffry N. Quinn
                                        President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Chairman of the Board

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Solutia Inc. and will
be retained by Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# Inspections

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security, employees from the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) at the Department of Justice, and employees from the Department of Labor may inspect an employer’s Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. Employers will generally receive a written Notice of Inspection at least 3 days before the inspection. These officials can inform the owner, designee, senior management official or registered agent of the business entity of an inspection in person or by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested. Officials may also use subpoenas and warrants to obtain the forms without providing 3 days’ notice.

Officials generally choose where they will conduct a Form I-9 inspection. For example, officials may ask that an employer bring Form I-9 to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office. Sometimes, employers may arrange for an inspection at the location where the forms are stored.

Recruiters and referrers for a fee who have designated employers to complete Form I-9 may present photocopies or printed electronic images of those forms to inspecting officials.

When officials arrive to inspect an employer’s Form I-9, the employer must:
                - Retrieve and reproduce electronically stored Form I-9 and any other documents the officer requests;
                - Provide the officer with the necessary hardware and software to inspect electronic documents; and
                - Provide the officer with any existing electronic summary of the information recorded on the employer’s Form I-9.

Employers who refuse or delay an inspection may be in violation of the law.

11/27/2019

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### DUNCAN KITCHEN GRIPS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOSTON WAREHOUSE TRADING CORP., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2011-1321.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 6, 2011.

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The parties jointly move to remand this case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Duncan Kitchen Grips, Inc. appeals from the district court’s ruling, inter alia, that Boston Warehouse Trading Corp. does not infringe claim 1 of its patent. The parties state that they have settled the case, conditioned upon the district court’s grant of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the *997underlying rulings and judgment, and move to remand so that the district court can consider such a motion. We grant the motion to remand to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the district court’s consideration of the parties’ motions. *Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc.,*629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir.2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the district court’s decision on remand. The appeal is held in abeyance pending the resolution of the motions by the district court. The parties should promptly inform this court of the district court’s ruling on the motion and should propose how they believe the appeal should proceed in light of the district’s ruling.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion to remand is granted to the limited extent explained above. The court retains jurisdiction over the appeal at this time.
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about March7,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and datedMarch 28,2023, at

Alameda, Califomia

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
# VAWA_FY24Q1

# image1.png
Exhibit 4.17

Shares Subscription Agreement

(This
Agreement is entered into between the following parties on January 30, 2016 in Beijing)

Issuer: China Tower Corporation Limited (China
Tower)

Subscriber: China Mobile Group Anhui Co., Ltd.

Whereas the issuer and the subscriber have signed the Transaction Agreement of the Existing Telecommunication Tower and related Assets by Issuance of
Shares and Payment of Cash on October 14, 2015. Based on the above agreement and the specific circumstances of delivery of towers and related assets, the issuer has determined to issue a total of 119,344,615,024 shares at a par value of RMB1
per share.



|1. | Subscription Price
|-- | ------------------

RMB1 per share.



|2. | Subscription Amount and Quantity
|-- | --------------------------------

The subscriber confirms to pay RMB5,833,769,398 to subscribe
for 5,833,769,398 shares.



|3. | Subscription Method
|-- | -------------------

The subscriber agrees to subscribe for the shares issued by investing with
assets.



|4. | Payment Method
|-- | --------------

The subscriber has completed the actual payment of contribution before
December 31, 2015.



|5. | Shareholders Rights and Obligations
|-- | ------------------------------------

The both parties confirm that the subscriber shall
become the owner of shares subscribed for in this transaction from the effective date of this Agreement, and enjoy its shareholder rights and bear the corresponding obligations for such shares. The both parties agree that the issuer shall complete
the change to register of shareholders, revision of Articles of Association and change to industrial and commercial registration within 30 days after signing this Shares Subscription Agreement.



|6. | Entry into Force and Counterparts
|-- | ---------------------------------

This Agreement shall enter into force on December 31,
2015. This agreement is executed in six counterparts, each party holding two copies, and the rest shall be submitted for examination and approval/record filing.

(Reminder of this page intentionally left blank)



---

|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|Issuer: China Tower Corporation Limited (chop)   
|Legal representative or authorized representative
|                                                 
|/s/ GAO Chunlei                                  
|                                                 
|Subscriber: China Mobile Group Anhui Co., Ltd.   
|Legal representative or authorized representative
|                                                 
|/s/ QIAN Li
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                        National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel.                     

*Date:*                         April 27, 2000.                     

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         Conference Room B2B32/Bldg 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Ken D Nakamura, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-0838.                     

This notice is being published less that 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: April 11, 2000. 

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 00-9722 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M