alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30989

Summary Calendar

 

LUTHER T. OTIS, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE; LESLYE A. BASS; ALBERT A.

LAVILLE; RON E. GARDNER; and MERVIN L. TRAIL,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-3795-T

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

February 15, 2001 

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luther Otis appeals the district court’s decision to deny

him appointed counsel with respect to the Title VII allegations

he has raised against the defendants. We review such decisions

for abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept., 811

F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Otis’ scant brief does not refer

to particular faults by the district court that might constitute

an abuse of discretion. Indeed, it is impossible to discern from

the brief any specific legal argument, rather Otis simply
2

disagrees in conclusory fashion with the district court’s

decision. Thus, the court is of the opinion that Otis’ general

and conclusory brief is not sufficiently specific to present

issues for review. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th

Cir. 1993). In any event, we have reviewed the district court’s

order, as well as the record, and it is evident that the district

court considered the proper factors in determining whether

appointment of counsel was warranted. The only cases that Otis

cites - Robins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1985) and Carter

v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 1998) - in no way conflict

with the manner in which the district court resolved Otis’

request for appointed counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.1


 


 


		CAPELOGIC INCORPORATED

Providing Technology Solutions for Financial Services


1 Windhaven Court, Monroe
Twp, NJ 08831 


Telephone: (609) 448-7930 Fax:
(973) 206-9430 


Web: www.capelogic.com


 


November 22, 2019


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.


8100 E. 22nd St. North, Building 800


Suite 102


Wichita, KS 67226


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 1980 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-234070 for the above captioned Fund and acknowledge that Capelogic, Inc. is currently acting
as the independent pricing agent for the Fund. Subsequently, we hereby consent to the reference of Capelogic, Inc. as independent
pricing agent.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 	 
	 	Capelogic, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ SALMAN AHMAD
	 	 	Salman Ahmad
	 	 	Treasurer
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GAR Y C EC IL, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. DANIEL PAR

AM O, W arde n; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-55004 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-02137-GPC NLS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Gary C e c i l, a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging dueproc e ss a nd a c c e ss-to-c ourt c la im s. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . In his ope ning brie f, C e c il fa ile d to a d dre ss a ny of the grounds for dism

issa l , 

# FIL ED DEC 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).and ha s the re fore wa ive d his a ppe a l of the distric t c ourt’ s orde r. Se eInde p. Tow e rs of W ash. v . W ashington , 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [W ] e will not c onside r any

c la im s tha

t we re not a c tua lly argue d in a ppe lla nt’ s ope ning brie f.” ); Ac osta-Hue rta v . Este lle , 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th C ir. 1993) (issue s not supporte d by argum e nt in pro sea

ppe lla nt’ s ope ning brie f are wa ive d). AFFIRM E D.

1 6 - 5 5 0 0 4 2
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Frank, McClanahan and Senior Judge Willis 

MELVIN SPROUSE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1329-06-2 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 6, 2007 

ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

 OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY 

Daniel R. Bouton, Judge 

 (Christian A. Brashear, on brief), for appellant. Appellant 

submitting on brief. 

 (Robert F. Beard; Michael J. Hallahan, II, Guardian ad litem, for the 

minor child, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad 

litem submitting on brief. 

 Melvin Sprouse appeals the trial court’s decision terminating his residual parental rights to 

his minor son, D.M., pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and 16.1-283(C)(2). Finding no error, we 

affirm. 

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant 

to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of

Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991). “‘[T]ermination of [residual] 

parental rights is a grave, drastic and irreversible action.’” Helen W. v. Fairfax County Dep’t of 

Human Dev., 12 Va. App. 877, 883, 407 S.E.2d 25, 28-29 (1991) (quoting Lowe v. Dept. of Pub. 

Welfare of the City of Richmond, 231 Va. 277, 280, 343 S.E.2d 70, 72 (1986)). When 

considering termination of a parent’s residual parental rights to a child, “the paramount 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
 - 2 - 

consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interests.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d 

at 463. On review, “[a] trial court is presumed to have thoroughly weighed all the evidence, 

considered the statutory requirements, and made its determination based on the child’s best 

interests.” Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 329, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). “The trial court’s 

judgment, ‘when based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be disturbed on appeal unless 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463 

(quoting Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 422, 364 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1988)). 

In light of these standards, and based upon our review of the record (including the trial 

court’s findings as reflected in its April 27, 2006 order for involuntary termination of residual 

parental rights, the written statement of facts, and the trial court’s written additions to the record 

made in accordance with Rule 5A:8), we conclude that the trial court’s decision finding that there 

was clear and convincing evidence to support termination of Sprouse’s residual parental rights to 

D.M. under Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and 16.1-283(C)(2), as being in the child’s best interests, was 

not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s 

decision. 

 Affirmed.
Exhibit
10.8


  


Loan
Agreement


 


Party
A (lender) : Guangzhou Chengji investment development co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as “party A”)


 


Legal
representative: Weicheng Pan


 


Address:
Room 2805, Building A, poly Zhonghui plaza, Linhe west road, Tianhe district, Guangzhou


 


Party
B (borrower) : Tianxing Haoche (Beijing) Technology co., LTD


 


Authorized
representative: Xiaomin Wang


 


Address:
1522, 15th floor, Building 2, Yard 2, Qingheying east road, Chaoyang district, Beijing


 


In
view of the needs of shareholders and trainees of party A to seek high-quality asset investment to obtain good returns; Whereas
party B is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAT GROUP, INC. (Nasdaq: GLG), the parties hereby enter into the following agreement through
friendly negotiation:


 


1.
Party A agrees to invest in party B in the form of loan with its own funds or funds of shareholders, partners, trainees and other
persons. Loan amount: party B borrows USD one million three hundred thousand only (in case: $1,300,000) from party A. The loan
amount shall be subject to the actual final amount, provided that it shall not be less than $700,000, otherwise party B shall
have the right to refuse to pay the interest.


 


2..
The loan shall be used by party B to expand its business scale and the daily operation of the company.


 


3.
Term of loan: the term of loan is 3 months which is from November 26, 2019 to February 26, 2020. If the actual date of loan is
inconsistent with such date, the actual date of loan shall prevail.


 


4.
The interest rate of the loan is 8% per annum and is settled according to the actual term of the loan.


  



     


     


    

 


5.
Party A shall arrange the investor to transfer the loan into the account designated by party B.


 


Account
name: Tianxing Haoche (Beijing) Technology Co., LTD


Account:
__________________


Deposit
bank: __________________


 


6.
Warranty terms:


 


a.
The borrower must use the loan for the purpose specified in the loan contract, and may not use it for other purposes or conduct
illegal activities.


 


b.
This loan shall be paid to the domestic account of Shenzhen Yunfeihu Cross-border E-commerce Co., LTD for the cooperation in commodity
trading.


 


Account
name: __________________


Receiving
bank: __________________


Account:
__________________


 


7.
Settlement of contract disputes:


 


Any
dispute arising from the performance of this contract shall be settled by the parties through friendly negotiation or mediated
by a third party. If negotiation or mediation fails, a lawsuit may be filed with the people’s court of the place where party A
is located or the people’s court of Beijing or the district court of Hong Kong.


 


8.
This contract shall come into force upon being affixed with official seals or signed by both parties. This contract is made in
duplicate, with each party holding one copy. The contract is equally authentic.


 


Party
A (signature and seal) : 


Legal
representative: /s/ Weicheng Pan


 


Party
b (signature and seal) :


Legal
representative: /s/ Xiaomin Wang
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,790
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,874
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,058
<PP&E>                                          19,941
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,073
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           196
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,696
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               229,751
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               104,057
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,781
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,848)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,629
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  5,381
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,010
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21670-21671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10767]


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

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 2202


Rules of Ethics and Conduct of Review Commission Employees

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby eliminates its rules for the ethics and 
conduct of Commission employees. The ethics and conduct of Commission 
employees are now governed by rules issued by the Office of Government 
Ethics (OGE) subsequent to the

[[Page 21671]]

Commission's adoption of its rules. Eliminating the Commission's 
separate rules will prevent confusion in the administration of the 
Commission's program for ensuring that its employees comply with the 
accepted standards for ethical conduct.

DATES: Effective May 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl R. Ohman, Jr., General Counsel, 
One Lafayette Center, 1120 20th St., N.W. 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 
20036-3457, phone 202-606-5410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rules for the ethical conduct of employees 
including Commission employees have been promulgated by the OGE at 5 
CFR Part 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the 
Executive Branch. The OGE has advised the Commission that these rules 
supersede 29 CFR Part 2202.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2202

    Conflict of interests.

    For the reasons stated, the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission under the authority of 29 U.S.C. 661(g) amends Title 29, 
Chapter XX of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 2202--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

    1. Part 2202 is removed and reserved.

    Dated: April 25, 2001.
Earl R. Ohman, Jr.,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-10767 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7600-01-M
Hear the BEEP where you SLEEP

Every Bedroom Needs 

a Working Smoke Alarm!
 

Half of home fire deaths 

happen between 11 p.m. 

and 7 a.m., when most 

people are asleep. 

For the best 

protection, install 

interconnected 

smoke alarms in 

your home. When 

one sounds, they 

all sound. 

years

Install smoke 

alarms in every 

bedroom, outside each 

separate sleeping area, 

and on every level of the 

home, including the 

basement. Larger 

homes may need 

more alarms.
 

Test alarms at 

least once a 

month by pushing 

the test button. 

Replace all smoke alarms 

when they are 10 years 

old or if they do not sound 

when tested. 

Some people, especially 

children and older adults, 

may need help to wake 

up. Make sure someone 

will wake them if the 

smoke alarm sounds. 

When the smoke alarm 

sounds, get outside and stay 

outside. Go to your outside 

meeting place. 

Call the fire department 

from a cellphone or a 

neighbor’s phone. Stay 

outside until the fire 

department says it’s 

safe to go back inside. 

www.usfa.fema.gov

www.nfpa.org
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                          Notes to Financial Statements
                           September 30, 1996 and 1995



Note 13. Management Fees

         The Company entered into a Management Consultant Retainer Agreement
         with John Howes on October 1, 1972.  Since John Howes no longer desires
         to provide the management consultants services required in the
         agreement, the Company has agreed that the Management Consultant
         Retainer Agreement be assigned, transferred and conveyed to Oak Helm
         Partners who assumed all rights and duties of the Agreement as of
         August 1, 1991. Oak Helm Partners received management fees of $39,000
         for each of the years ended September 30, 1996, 1995 and 1994.

Note 14. Provision for Income Taxes

         Due to loss carry forwards from previous years,  a provision for income
         taxes has not been made.  There will be no material effect on the
         Company upon its adaption of  SFAS No. 96, Accounting for Income Taxes.
EXHIBIT 15

November 7,
2008
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We
are aware that our report dated November 7, 2008 on our review of interim financial information of W. R. Grace & Co. (the "Company") for the three-month and
nine-month periods ended September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 and included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008, is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-37024, 333-49083, 333-49507,
333-49509, 333-49511, 333-49513, 333-49515 and 333-49517).

Very
truly yours,

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
McLean, Virginia

---



QuickLinks
# CE2010212EN.01025901.xml

| 5.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 212/259 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/259

---

Wednesday 6 May 2009Draft amending budget No 5/2009

P6_TA(2009)0356

European Parliament resolution of 6 May 2009 on Draft amending budget No 5/2009 of the European Union for the financial year 2009, Section III – Commission (9127/2009 – C6-0157/2009 – 2009/2040(BUD))

2010/C 212 E/39

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to Article 272 of the EC Treaty and Article 177 of the Euratom Treaty,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), and particularly Articles 37 and 38,

1

having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2009, as finally adopted on 18 December 2008 (2),

2

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (3),

3

having regard to Preliminary draft amending budget No 5/2009 of the European Union for the financial year 2009, which the Commission presented on 15 April 2009 (COM(2009)0177),

having regard to Draft amending budget No 5/2009, which the Council established on 27 April 2009 (9127/2009 – C6-0157/2009),

having regard to Rule 69 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0282/2009),

| A. | whereas Draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget 2009 covers the budgeting of the surplus resulting from the implementation of the budget for the year 2008, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget 2009 covers the budgeting of the surplus resulting from the implementation of the budget for the year 2008,

| B. | whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 5/2009 is to formally enter these budgetary adjustments into the 2009 budget, |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 5/2009 is to formally enter these budgetary adjustments into the 2009 budget,

| 1. | Takes note of Preliminary draft amending budget No 5/2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Takes note of Preliminary draft amending budget No 5/2009;

| 2. | Approves Draft amending budget No 5/2009 unamended; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Approves Draft amending budget No 5/2009 unamended;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 69, 13.3.2009.

2

(3)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

3

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6494 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6494

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 16, 2010

                                Received

                           December 22, 2010

       Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to 
         improve the Littoral Combat Ship program of the Navy.

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

SECTION 1. LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP PROGRAM.

    (a) Contract Authority.--Subsection (a) of section 121 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 
111-84; 123 Stat. 2211) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking ``ten Littoral Combat Ships and 15 
                Littoral Combat Ship ship control and weapon systems'' 
                and inserting ``20 Littoral Combat Ships, including any 
                ship control and weapon systems the Secretary 
                determines necessary for such ships,''; and
                    (B) by striking ``a contract'' and inserting ``one 
                or more contracts''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``liability to'' and 
        inserting ``liability of''.
    (b) Technical Data Package.--Subsection (b)(2)(A) of such section 
is amended by striking ``a second shipyard, as soon as practicable'' 
and inserting ``another shipyard to build a design specification for 
that Littoral Combat Ship''.
    (c) Limitation of Costs.--Subsection (c)(1) of such section is 
amended by striking ``awarded to a contractor selected as part of a 
procurement'' and inserting ``under a contract''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```