alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 10-08

IN RE: RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and KASOLD, HAGEL, MOORMAN,

LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the authority of 38 U.S.C. §§ 7263(b) and 7264(a), the Court hereby will allow

parties in any appeal filed at the Court before April 1, 2008, in which the Record on Appeal has not

yet been filed, the option, upon mutual consent, to follow revised Rule 10 and Rule 28.1 of the

Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) pertaining to the Record Before the Agency and the

Record of Proceedings. See In Re: Rules of Practice and Procedure, U.S. VET. APP. MISC. NO. 03-

08 (Mar.19, 2008) (en banc) (adopting new Rules 10 and 28.1 effective April 1, 2008).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that, for any appeal filed at the Court before April 1, 2008, in which the Record

on Appeal has not yet been filed, the Secretary may file, not later than 30 days after the date of this

order, a notice with the Clerk certifying (1) that the parties, by mutual consent, are following revised

Rules 10 and 28.1 of the Court's Rules pertaining to the Record Before the Agency and the Record

of Proceedings, and (2) that the Record Before the Agency has been served on the appellant in

accordance with new Rule 10, or will be so served on the appellant within 30 days after the date of

this order. U.S. VET. APP. R. 10(a)(6) (effective April 1, 2008). No motions for extensions of time

in which to serve the Record Before the Agency will be granted. 

DATED: October 29, 2008 BY THE COURT:

/s/ William P. Greene, Jr. 

WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR.

Chief Judge
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

Misc. No. 8-05

In Re: EFFECT OF HURRICANE KATRINA ON POSTAL SERVICE

Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and KASOLD, HAGEL, MOORMAN,

LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

O R D E R

The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi has

required the United States Postal Service (USPS) to suspend mail service to zip codes beginning

with the following three digits: 395, 396, 700, 701, 703, and 704. This emergency measure by the

USPS potentially will delay filing of actions in cases pending at the Court for pro se appellants

and/or legal representatives located within one of these zip codes, as well as actions by the Secretary

where necessary records are so located. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that, until further order of the Court, in all such cases in which an action is

required of the appellant or the Secretary at any time during the period of suspended mail service,

proceedings shall be suspended at that point, unless an affected party notifies the Court that he or

she wishes a specific case to proceed. Other parties affected by Hurricane Katrina but who reside

outside the identified zip codes may request appropriate relief on a case-by-case basis. This order

will apply to any other USPS zip code designated by the USPS as adversely affected by the exigent

conditions caused by Hurricane Katrina. 

DATED: September 9, 2005 BY THE COURT:

WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR.

Chief Judge
Letter agreement, dated March 29, 2010, between Sean A. Windeatt and BGC Holding



 Exhibit 10.3 

 

 

 Strictly private and confidential 
 To be opened by addressee only 
 BY HAND 
 29 March 2010 
 Mr. Sean Windeatt

 Dear Sean: 
 Reference is made to
your partnership interests in BGC Holdings, L.P. (“BGC Holdings” or the “Partnership”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement of Limited Partnership of BGC Holdings,
amended and restated as of March 31, 2008 (as further amended from time to time, the “Partnership Agreement”). 
 You acknowledge
and agree to the following: the Partnership shall purchase from you and redeem (i) 70,424 REUs held by you with an associated Post-Termination Amount of USD 282,157 for a cash payment of USD 94,880 and an award of 54,579 non-exchangeable PSUs;
and (ii) 13,026 Founding Partner Units held by you for a cash payment of USD 78,000. All cash payments shall be less all applicable taxes, deductions, and withholdings, and payable to you as soon as practicable after such redemptions.

 You agree to execute any and all documents as required by the Partnership in connection with executing the foregoing. This letter shall be
governed by the terms and conditions of, as well as the same venue and choice of law provisions, governing the Partnership Agreement. 
 This
letter agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding of each of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and neither party is relying upon any promises, representations or inducements, written, oral or otherwise,
which are not set forth in this letter agreement. 
 This letter agreement may only be treated as an offer capable of acceptance if executed by
Howard Lutnick on behalf of the Managing General Partner. It may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which shall constitute one agreement. Each such counterpart signature may be delivered via
telecopier or email. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	BGC HOLDINGS, L.P.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Howard W. Lutnick

		 	Howard W. Lutnick

 Accepted and Agreed:

 PARTICIPANT 
  

			
	Signature:	 	 /s/ Sean Windeatt

		 	Sean Windeatt

 [Letter
Agreement between BGC Holdings, L.P. and Sean Windeatt, dated March 29, 2010]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BASAVARAJ HOOLI,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1933

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00878-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

On April 2, 2024, the United States Court of Federal 

Claims entered judgment dismissing Basavaraj Hooli’s 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Federal 

Claims received Mr. Hooli’s notice of appeal on June 7, 

2024. The United States now moves the court to dismiss 

this appeal as untimely or alternatively to summarily 

Case: 24-1933 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 08/20/2024
2 HOOLI v. US

affirm the Court of Federal Claims’s judgment. Mr. Hooli 

has not responded.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the 

Court of Federal Claims within 60 days of the entry of judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2522 (“Review of a decision of the 

United States Court of Federal Claims shall be obtained by 

filing a notice of appeal . . . within the time . . . prescribed 

for appeals to United States courts of appeals from the 

United States district courts.”); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b) (providing a 60-day deadline for appeals from district courts in 

cases involving the United States); Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(1)(B); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C). The statutory deadline for taking an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims 

has been held to be mandatory and jurisdictional, such that 

this court would not be permitted to excuse a late notice. 

Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 

2008); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007); 

cf. Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1). Here, the notice of appeal was 

due no later than June 3, 2024. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). 

Because the notice of appeal was not received within that 

time, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal 

is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

August 20, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-1933 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 08/20/2024
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 14-10

IN RE: RECALL OF SENIOR JUDGE

O R D E R

WHEREAS the Court receives approximately 300 Notices of Appeal every month, as well

as numerous motions and other filings, and 

WHEREAS appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court deserve timelyjudicial review

and decision, and 

WHEREAS the Chief Judge of the Court pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §7257 (b)(1) may recall

Senior Judges of the Court who have retired but who have agreed to be available for such recall

when their service is needed by the Court, and 

WHEREAS the Chief Judge of the Court has determined that the service of a Senior Judge

is needed by the Court and, if recalled, that Senior Judge would perform substantial service to the

Court by reviewing and deciding appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court, and

WHEREAS Senior Judge Frank Q. Nebeker has agreed to be available for recall as needed

by the Court,

THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED that, effective January 3, 2011, Judge Frank Q. Nebeker is recalled from retired

status to have and to exercise all of the judicial powers and duties of the office of a Judge in active

service and otherwise perform substantial service in reviewing and deciding appeals, motions, and

other filings with the Court. Judge Nebeker shall serve until the Chief Judge of the Court determines

that his service is no longer needed or until March 31, 2011, whichever is sooner, unless extended

by the Chief Judge with the consent of Judge Nebeker.

DATED: December 17, 2010 BY THE COURT:

Bruce E. Kasold

Chief Judge
#### Stuart v. Oldacre.

.Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speaks.

E. W. Godbey, for appellant.

W. R. Francis, for appellee.

*677Opinion by

McClellan, C. J.

*676This was a proceeding under section 2649 of the Code of 1896, in the Circuit Court of Morgan county, to substitute an order extending the time to have signed the bill of exceptions in the case of *J. B. Stuart v. W. H. Oldacre,*which had been tried in said circuit court, at the fall term, 1896, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which judgment notice of appeal was given, and the defendant allowed thirty days in which to present and have signed his bill of exceptions.

Soon after the adjournment of said term of the court, the Hon H. C. Speake, the judge of said court, and who presided at said trial, was taken very sick, and at the expiration of the thirty days was unable to settle the disputed points in the bill of exceptions, and extended the time for signing the same an additional thirty days.

The petition for the substitution of said order was filed in the circuit court of Morgan county, where the case had been tried, Maych 31st, 1898, and notice given appellant, as required by law, and a copy of the petition, together with a copy of the proposed substitute, was served on appellant at the same time with the notice. This petition was verified by affidavit.

When the petition came on to be heard the court asked the attorney for J. B. Stuart, the plaintiff in the case, what response he had to make to the petition, and he replied that he had no response to make. Thereupon the court granted the application and the prayer of the petition, and the substitute was ordered to be made as a *677part of the record of the case. The granting of this petition and the order is assigned as error on this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9614]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-701; MM Docket No. 97-169; RM-9121 and RM-9170]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Coon Valley and Westby, WI and 
Lanesboro, MN

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration, denial.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for reconsideration of a 
Report and Order Order, 63 FR 30145 (June 3, 1998), that allotted 
Channel 280A to both Westby, Wisconsin, and Lanesboro, Minnesota. These 
allotments provide first local aural transmission services to two 
communities that are more populous than Coon Valley, Wisconsin.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 97-169, adopted on March 
22, 2000, and released on March 31, 2000. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at 
Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. 20554. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, located at 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-9614 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5877 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

655 Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Lance 

Corporal Alexander Scott Arredondo, United States Marine Corps Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2010 

Mr. CAPUANO 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 655 Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Alexander Scott 

Arredondo, United States Marine Corps Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL ALEXANDER SCOTT 

4 ARREDONDO, UNITED STATES MARINE 

5 CORPS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

7 Postal Service located at 655 Centre Street in Jamaica 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5877 IH

1 Plain, Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as 

2 the ‘‘Lance Corporal Alexander Scott Arredondo, United 

3 States Marine Corps Post Office Building’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

7 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Alex8 ander Scott Arredondo, United States Marine Corps Post 

9 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Corey S. Goodman, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Renovis, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this 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 respectto the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

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

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 30, 2004
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00351-CR

ROBERT C. MORRIS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF PARKER COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CCL 96-1806

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On May 2, 1997, appellant Robert C. Morris pleaded guilty to 

misdemeanor theft pursuant to a plea bargain, and in accordance with the plea 

bargain, the trial court sentenced him to 180 days’ confinement and a $100 fine. 

On July 15, 2014, Morris filed a “Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order,” requesting 

that the trial court delete assessed attorney’s fees from its written judgment 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

because Morris is indigent. The trial court denied the motion, and Morris filed a 

notice of appeal of the denial of his motion.

On November 13, 2014, we notified Morris that we are concerned that we 

lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court has not entered any 

appealable order. We stated that the appeal may be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a 

response on or before November 24, 2014, showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. No response has been filed.

The denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable 

order. See Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. 

dism’d); see also Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App.

2010). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 18, 2014
#### Ana M. Herrera, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Javier Herrera, Deceased, Respondent, v Claude E. Piano et al., Appellants.

— In a wrongful death action, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated June 5, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Claude E. Piano is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed as to defendant Ann Piano, and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant Ann Piano.

On June 27, 1982, the plaintiff’s decedent, an adult non-swimmer, drowned in the presence of other nonswimmers, when he allegedly lost his footing on an inclined, slippery, pool bottom and fell into the portion of the pool where the water was over his head. A rescue was attempted with a pool skimmer, which broke when the decedent grabbed it. The plaintiff commenced this wrongful death action, contending, *inter alia,*that the owners were negligent in failing to equip the pool, which contained deep water, with any suitable or readily accessible life lines, life preservers, life rings or other rescue equipment, albeit the owners had expressly granted nonswimmers permission to use the pool with knowledge that the person supervising the use of the pool, a caretaker, also could not swim.

The owner of a private residential swimming pool has a *549duty to maintain the pool in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury and the burden of avoiding the risk *(see, Naughton v Sheehan,*56 AD2d 839; *Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233, 241). The evidentiary facts set forth by the plaintiff, which were conceded to be true for purposes of the motion for summary judgment, suffice to raise a triable issue as to whether or not there was negligence in failing to equip the pool with rescue equipment *(see generally, Liability of Operator of Swimming Facility for Injury or Death Allegedly Resulting from the Absence or Inadequacy in Rescue Equipment,*Ann., 87 ALR3d 380). Accordingly, the court correctly denied the motion for summary judgment. However, we note that in the absence of a showing that there was an undue accumulation of slime on the bottom of the pool, or that the floor material was not suitable for pools, the defendant Ann Piano cannot be liable for the decedent’s drowning merely because he slipped from the shallow to the deep end of the pool, since a certain amount of slipperiness necessary to the use of pools is unavoidable *(see, Sciarello v Coast Holding Co.,*242 App Div 802, *affd*267 NY 585; *Beck v Broad Channel Bathing Park,*255 NY 641; *O'Loughlin v State of New York,*32 Misc 2d 264; *cf. Perez v City of New York,*44 AD2d 514, *affd*36 NY2d 657).

The defendant Claude Piano died prior to the rendering of the decision against him, thereby making the order void as to him and necessitating the dismissal of his appeal *(see,*CPLR 5016 [d]; *Mangonero v Grega,*108 AD2d 842). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# Combating Fraud and Abuse in the H-2B Visa Program

The H-2B visa program helps U.S. companies or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring noncitizens to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs. Protecting American workers by combating fraud in our employment-based immigration programs is a priority for USCIS. 

## Reporting Suspected H-2B Fraud or Abuse

Anyone (including American workers and H-2B workers who suspect they or others may be the victim of H-2B fraud or abuse) can send us tips, alleged violations, and other relevant information about potential fraud or abuse using our online tip form.

## Promoting Transparency

Transparency about how the H-2B program is being used is vital to ensuring accountability for employers and improving policies and practices that protect American workers. To view reports and data about H-2B petitions for previous fiscal years, please visit page the Immigration and Citizenship Data page.

02/09/2021

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