alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. AN AEL VASQU EZ - DI AZ, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50155 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 01 01 1-JM -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e f f r e yT . M i l l e r , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 20, 2011 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , T H O M A S an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A nael V as qu ez -D i az appeal s the se nt ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea t o att em pt ed entryaf

t erdepo rt at i on i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6. V as qu ez -D i az c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n de t e rm i ni ng tha thi s pr i orc onvi c t i on f or 

# FI LED APR28 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSm a ki ng c r i m i na lthr e a t s i n vi ol a t i on of C a l i f . P e na l C ode § 422 w a s ac r i m e of v i o l en ce w arran t i n g a 1 6 -l ev el en h an cem en tu n d er U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 (b )(1 )(A ). A s V asq u ez-D i az co n ced es, th i s co n t en t i o n i s fo recl o sedb y U ni ted States v. V i l lavi ce nci o-B urruel , 608 F . 3d 556 ( 9th C i r . 2010) , w hi c h he l d tha ta§ 422 vi ol at i on i s c at egori ca l l y acr i m e of vi ol ence . AF F I RME D.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of advisory committee meeting date change. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Systems Technology for the Future U.S. Strategic Posture closed meeting scheduled for June 13-14, 2001, published at 65 FR 70556, November 24, 2000, has been changed to June 25-26, 2001. The meeting will be held at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA.

Dated: June 8, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-15212  Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
Order entered November 22 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00969
- CV BRIGETTA D'OLIVIO A/K/A BRIGETTA ALIX ANDERSON, ALIX BRIGETTA , Appellant

V. HILARY THO MPSON HUTSON , Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296
- 04855
- 2019

O RDER On September 19, 2022, appellant Brigetta D’Olivio a/k/a Brigetta Alix Anderson, Alix Brigetta , filed a motion for re con sideration and motion to transfer this case to one of the Houston courts of appeals

. On September 27, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Miles v. Ford Motor Company , 914 S.W.2d 135, 137 n. 2 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam), this Court referred the portion of appellant’s motion requesting a transfer to the Texas Supreme Court for determination . On our own motion, we abated the case pending the supreme court’s resolution of the transferissue . On November 21 , 2022, the Texas S upreme C ourt denied appellant’ s

request for transfer. Accordingly , we now LIFT THE ABATEMENT and REINSTATE the case.
This Court denied appellant’s motions for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration on September 13, 2022. In denying appellant’s motions, we did not modify our judgme nt, vacate our judgment, render a new jud gment, or issue a new opinion. Appellant’s September 19 , 2022 motion for reconsideration is, therefore , not authorized by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 49.4. A motion for reconsidera tion not authorized by the rules is a nullity. Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest , 795 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex. 1990). Accordingly, we DISMISS appellant ’s motion for reconsideration.

/s/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A1923. GARIN LEE DANIEL v. THE STATE.

Garin Lee Daniel was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and possession of

marijuana, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Daniel v. State, 306 Ga.

App. 48 (701 SE2d 499) (2010). Daniel subsequently filed a motion to set aside his

judgment of conviction, challenging the validity of his arrest warrant, grand jury

proceedings, and the effectiveness of trial counsel. The trial court dismissed the

motion based upon Daniel’s failure to raise a valid void sentence argument. Daniel

filed a notice of appeal from this ruling.

A direct appeal lies from an order denying or dismissing a motion to correct a

void sentence only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in

fact, void or illegal. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009);

Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentence is void only

when the trial court imposes punishment that the law does not allow. See Jordan v.

State, 253 Ga. App. 510, 511 (1) (559 SE2d 528) (2002). Here, Daniel does not

assert that the trial court imposed a sentence the law does not allow. Rather, he takes

issue with his underlying conviction. The Supreme Court has made clear, however,

that a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment of

conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a

judgment in a criminal case.” Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010).

Because Daniel is not authorized to collaterally attack his conviction in this manner,

his appeal of the issue is hereby DISMISSED. See id.; see also Harper v. State, 286

Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009) (overruling Chester v. State, 284 Ga. 162,

162-163 (2) (664 SE2d 220) (2008)); Matherlee v. State, 303 Ga. App. 765 (694

July 15, 2014
SE2d 665) (2010).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/15/2014
Mark HEDGES, petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY.

No. 15-1332.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

TRADINGSCREEN INC. 

v. 

ICE FUTURES U.S., INC. and ICE SWAP 

TRADE 

CFTC Docket No. 14-E-01 

ORDER PURSUANT TO 

DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

On February 11, 2014, TradingScreen and ICE Futures submitted a Joint Motion for 

Extension of Time of all deadlines in the above-captioned matter by an additional 45 days, to 

continue to pursue settlement negotiations. On February 25, 2014, the Commission granted the 

motion nunc pro tunc to February 14, 2014, extending the deadline for the appeal brief to April 

21, 2014. On April 17, 2014, the parties submitted a further Joint Motion for Extension of Time. 

The Office of Proceedings notified the parties, via email, on April21, 2014, that the request had 

been denied in part and granted in part, extending all deadlines by an additional 21 days. By 

email dated May 7, 2014, TradingScreen moved for reconsideration of the Commission's April 

21, 2014 informal decision. Accordingly, the joint request for further extension of all deadlines 

is granted nunc pro tunc to April 21, 2014. In the event that a settlement is not reached, the 

complainant's appeal brief shall now be filed and served on or before June 24,2014 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 

Dated: May 12, 2014 

Ro rt A. c artz 

Deputy General Counsel 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1 By the Commission pursuant to delegated authority. 17 C.F.R. § 9.9(b)(vii).
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00521-CR

Milton Geovany Valle

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-437-C2

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 17, 2023
Alexander Nathan DAVIS, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

No. 15-1273.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.
#### In re RAMSEUR et al.

(District Court, N. D. Georgia, E. D.

August 8, 1921.)

No. 1028.

Bankruptcy €=>400(3)—Surplus from sale under mortgage foreclosure properly set aside by trustee for homestead exemption by ordinary.

. Surplus from sale under mortgage foreclosure before adjudication in bankruptcy *held*properly set apart by the trustee, on claim of bankrupt, for exemption as a homestead.

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of E. F. Ramseur and Frank Simpson, bankrupts. On review of referee’s order setting aside exemption.

Affirmed.

The stock of merchandise of the bankrupts was levied upon on February 10, 1921, by virtue of the foreclosure of two mortgages thereon; on February 18 an involuntary bankruptcy was begun against them; on February 24 the stock of merchandise was sold by the sheriff; on March 11 adjudication in bankruptcy was had, and later the sheriff paid over to the trustee in bankruptcy the remainder of the proceeds of sale after satisfying the mortgage fi. fas. The bankrupts claimed homestead exemptions out of this money; the trustee set apart the exemptions claimed, which the referee confirmed. It was contended on review of his decision that cash could not be exempted, that there was no sufficient description of the property claimed, and that, the assets having been sold and reduced to cash, no homestead could be allowed.

€=;For other cases see same topic *&*KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests *&*Indexes

*576■ Waller S. Dillon and Wm. J. Davis, Jr., both of Atlanta, Ga., for objecting creditors.

Goode, Owens & Andrews, of Toccoa, Ga., for bankrupts.

SIBLEY, District Judge.

The original property was levied upon by the sheriff before bankruptcy, and the mortgage lien which was being enforced not being invalidated by the bankruptcy, he sold the property, and only the excess over the mortgage of the money produced by the sale ever came into the hands of the bankrupt court. The bankrupt did not claim and could not have claimed that the trustee set apart as exempt the property which had been sold by the sheriff before the adjudication in bankruptcy ever occurred', but could only claim the cash which came to the bankrupt court. He had not consented to the sale, nor estopped himself in any way from claiming the property in the form cash, to which the operation of the law had reduced it before it came into the trustee’s hands. Though cash, it was subject to be claimed as a homestead,'though before it actually became homestead property it is to be invested by the ordinary. Park’s Code, § 3391. The trustee does not exempt it; he merely sets it aside from the assets which he is to administer that it may be exempted by the ordinary. Cases in which property became cash in court, which the debtor was held entitled to have invested as a homestead are Taylor v. Jarrell, 104 Ga. 169, 171, 30 S. E. 675; Woods v. Jones, 54 Ga. 492.

I see no error in the conclusion of the referee, and his decision is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31887-31888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15018]


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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: June 19, 2001; 1 p.m.-4 p.m.

PLACE: Radio Free Asia, Suite 300, 2025 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20036.

CLOSED MEETING: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
(BBG) will meet in closed session to review and discuss a number of 
issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international 
broadcasting. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and 
personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating 
to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This 
meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose 
matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the 
interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 
U.S.C. 552b. (c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature 
disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate 
implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b. (c)(9)(B)) 
In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal 
personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or

[[Page 31888]]

the International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b. (c)(2) and (6))

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact either Brenda Hardnett or Carol Booker 
at (202) 401-3736.

    Dated: June 11, 2001.
Carol Booker,
Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-15018 Filed 6-11-01; 1:33 pm]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
Exhibit 10.1

 

GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES INCOME TRUST

 

Summary of Trustee Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Trustees of Government Properties Income Trust, or the Company, for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $40,000, plus a fee of $1,250 for each meeting attended. Up to two $1,250 fees are payable if more than one board and board committee meetings are held on the same date.

 

·                  The chairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the nominating and governance committee, each of whom is an Independent Trustee, receive an additional annual fee of $15,000, $10,000 and $10,000, respectively.

 

·                  Each Trustee receives a grant of 2,500 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).

 

·                  The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred from their attending certain continuing education programs.
Juan Francisco Medina ORTIZ, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 16-385.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District denied.
Meeting of the CFTC’s Agriculture Advisory Committee 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

August 1st, 2006 

(Subject to Change) 

Morning Session: Commitment of Trader Reports 

09:30 AM Welcome 

• Commissioner Michael Dunn, Chair,CFTC Agriculture Advisory Committee 

09:35 AM Commissioners’ Remarks 

• Chairman Reuben Jeffery

• Commissioner Walter Lukken

• Commissioner Fred Hatfield

09:45 AM Presentation on Federal Register Release 

• John Fenton, Deputy Director for Market Surveillance, CFTC Division of 

Market Oversight 

• Don Heitman, Senior Special Counsel, CFTC Division of Market Oversight 

 

10:15 AM Views from the Field 

• Dave Lehman, Managing Director and Chief Economist, Chicago Board of 

Trade 

• Dan Brophy, Brophy Commodities and Chair, National Grain Trade 

Council’s Futures Committee 

• Greg Zerzan, Counsel and Head of Global Public Policy, International 

Swaps and Derivatives Association 

• Tom Coyle, General Manager, Chicago Illinois River Marketing LLC 

(CIRM), on behalf of, National Grain and Feed Association

• Fred Clark, Representative, U.S. Rice Producers Federation

10:35 AM Roundtable Discussion (Committee Representatives) 

11:35 AM Public Comment 

11:45 AM Summary of Next Steps and Break for Lunch 

• Commissioner Michael Dunn
Afternoon Session 

Economic and Market implications of Thinly Traded Price 

 Discovery Markets 

1:00 PM Overview of CFTC Authority over Cash, Futures, and Options Markets 

• Nannette Everson, General Counsel, CFTC

1:10PM Overview of Thinly-Traded Markets in Dairy, Pork, and Beef 

• David Kass, Industry Economist, CFTC Division of Market Oversight

1:30 PM Role of Price Discovery Markets in USDA Programs 

• Warren Preston, Chief Economist, Livestock & Seed Program, USDA 

Agricultural Marketing Service. 

1:50 PM Issues in Thinly-Traded Price Discovery Markets. 

• Steven Turner, Chair, Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi 

State University

2:10 PM Price Discovery, Cost of Carry, and Trader Interactions in Commodity Markets 

• Michael Haigh, Associate Chief Economist, CFTC Office of Chief Economist

2:30 PM Break 

3:00 PM Views from the Field 

• Gregg Doud, Chief Economist, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

3:10 PM Roundtable Discussion and Public Comment 

 

4:00 PM Wrap-up and Summary of Next Steps 

• Commissioner Michael Dunn

New Issues 

4:10 PM Concerns in Major Grain Futures Markets Regarding the Weak Cash Bases and 

 Lack of Convergence at Expiration 

• David Kass, Industry Economist, CFTC Division of Market Oversight

4:30 PM Adjourn 

As of: 7/28/06
CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., petitioner, v. SUD-CHEMIE AG, et al.

No. 16-238.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and the Statements of Revenue and Expenses and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,342,445
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,859,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,823,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,859,343
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,636
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   203
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (806,742)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad Anónima (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, 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 respect to the period covered by this report; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report . |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|           | IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad Anónima |                                            |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|           |                                                      |                                            |   |
| March 16, 2016 | By:                                                       | /s/ Matias I. Gaivironsky                  |   |
|           |                                                      | Matias I. Gaivironsky                           |   |
|           |                                                      | Chief Financial and Administrative Officer |   |

----