alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the first meeting of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Board of Advisors. The Board was chartered by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on October 4, 2000, to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense regarding the mission of DFAS as it transforms its financial management operations, processes, and systems. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 92-463).

# DATES:

Wednesday, June 27, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

Crystal City Marriott, Salon A, Monticello Ballroom, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

# Proposed Schedule and Agenda:

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service Board of Advisors will meet in open session from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on June 27, 2001. The meeting will include discussions on the DFAS Strategic Plan and Balanced Scorecard, DFAS Competitive Sourcing Program, Capital Investment Strategy, and Financial Management Reform Plan and Initiatives.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Codie Smith, Resource Management, DFAS, Crystal Mall 3 (room 206), 1931 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22240. Telephone (703) 607-1162. Public seating for this meeting is limited, and is available on a first-come first-served basis.

Dated: June 13, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-15386 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RT01-34-002; RT01-75-003]

Take notice that on June 5, 2001, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted an errata to the compliance filing required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's March 28, 2001 Order in the proceeding captioned above.

Copies of this filing were served on all parties included on the Commission's official service lists established in this proceeding, as well as on affected state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 18, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15382  Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric MUKASA, a.k.a. Elijah Mukasa, a.k.a. Moses Mukasa, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50424.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 5, 2012.

Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jay Howard Robinson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robison D. Harley, Jr., Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Eric Mukasa appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for encouraging aliens to enter or reside in the United States illegally, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mukasa contends that the district court committed procedural error by sentencing him to an above-Guidelines sentence under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors without *632prior notice, by failing to undertake an individualized analysis, and by failing to explain why it rejected his request for a downward variance based on post-offense rehabilitation. The record belies these contentions. *See United States v. Orlando, 553*F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir.2009) (“Garden variety considerations of culpability, criminal history, likelihood of re-offense, seriousness of the crime, should not generally come as a surprise to trial lawyers who have prepared for sentencing”) (quotation marks, citation and alterations omitted); *United States v. Perez-Perez, 512*F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir.2008) (finding no error where it was clear from the transcript that the sentencing judge had considered the defendant’s mitigation arguments, even though he did not explicitly reference them in imposing sentence).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Cite as: 573 U. S. ____ (2014) 1 

Statement of ALITO, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION v.
 

STEVE TRUNK, ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT 

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH 

CIRCUIT
 

No. 13–1061. Decided June 30, 2014
 

The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is

denied. 

 Statement of JUSTICE ALITO respecting the denial of the 

petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment. 

This case came before us two years ago, see 567 U. S.

___ (2012), and at that time I issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari. I noted that although the

“Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence is undoubtedly in need of clarity,” certiorari was not yet warranted in

this case “[b]ecause no final judgment has been rendered 

and it remains unclear precisely what action the Federal

Government will be required to take.” Id., at ___ (slip op., 

at 2, 3).

Since that time, the District Court has issued an order 

requiring the memorial to be removed, but it has stayed 

that order pending appeal. The Court of Appeals has not 

yet reviewed that order on appeal. Seeking to bypass that

step, petitioner seeks certiorari before judgment. In my 

view, it has not met the very demanding standard we

require in order to grant certiorari at that stage. In light

of the stay, any review by this Court can await the decision of the Court of Appeals. I therefore agree with the 

Court’s decision to deny the petition.
#### GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO. et al.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

June 22, 1909.)

Courts (§ 385*) — Supreme Court — Review of Decisions oe Circuit Court.

A Circuit Court should not grant an appeal direct to the Supreme Court under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 549), in a case involving a large number of miscellaneous and complicated questions, merely because a constitutional question may be incidentally raised.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Courts, Dee. Dig. •§ 385.*]

' In Equity. Application by complainant for allowance of an appeal to the United States Supreme Court from decree of foreclosure and sale (168 Eed. 937) made herein March 18, 1909.

Davies, Stone & Auerbach, for complainant.

J. Parker Kirlin, for defendant Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.

Masten & Nichols, for receivers of Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Examination of the assignments of error shows that it is sought to present upon this appeal multitudinous questions — largely questions of chancery practice — involving all the intricate details of the situation presented on the trial of this suit. The relationships of the various interests are involved and the necessities of operation by the court have still further complicated them, with the result that provision has had to be made in the decree, for minute details which are usually omitted. It was one object of the Appeal Act of March 3, 1891 (chapter 517, 26 Stat. 826 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 488]), to relieve the Supreme Court of the burden of considering such questions — at least until after the local Court of Appeals should have considered them, whereupon, in the event of apparent error being disclosed they might be brought up on certiorari. It would seem that the references in three or four of the assignments of error to the provisions of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States are not sufficient to. warrant the Circuit Court in sending the course upon appeal direct to the Supreme Court under the fourth "Subdivision of section 5 of the appeal act. Certainly the construction or application of the Constitution was not the controlling or dominant feature of the case. It is thought therefore that the application for allowance of such appeal should be refused. Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 170, 14 Sup. Ct. 63, 37 L. Ed. 1041; In re Lennon, 150 U. S. 393, 14 Sup. Ct. 123, 37 L. Ed. 1120; Ansbro v. U. S., 159 U. S. 695, 16 Sup. Ct. 187, 40 L. Ed. 310; Cornell v. Green, 163 U. S. 75, 16 Sup. Ct. 969, 41 L. Ed. 76; Empire, etc., Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 27 Sup. Ct. 476; 51 L. Ed. 779.

. If this court is in error as to construction and application of the authorities above cited, the complainant will be in no way prejudiced thereby, since application for allowance of the appeal can be made to one of the justices of the Supreme Court. Refusal does not put appellant to the trouble of moving for a mandamus.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 2.18

                             M L C ENTERPRISES, INC.
                                 (the "Company")

                        WRITTEN CONSENT OF ALL DIRECTORS
                               IN LIEU OF MEETING

         The undersigned, being all the directors of M L C ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Texas Corporation, do hereby vote for, approve and consent to the following
resolutions:

         RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of M L C ENTERPRISES, INC. the
         Company entering into the Stock Acquisition Agreement by and between
         INDUSTRIAL DATA SYSTEMS CORP., MICHAEL L. MOORE and M L C ENTERPRISES,
         INC.

         RESOLVED FURTHER, that Michael L. Moore, the President of the Company,
is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to do and perform all such acts and
execute any and all documents necessary to consummate the foregoing transaction.

         This consent is executed pursuant to Business Corporation law
authorizing the taking of action by the Board of Directors by unanimous written
consent without a meeting.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this consent effective the 13th day
of November, 1998.

                                      /s/ Michael L. Moore
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      MICHAEL L. MOORE, Sole
                                      Shareholder and Director

IDS/MLC/CONSENT.1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1163 BRADLEY TODD, a/k/a Leamon Bradley Todd, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00922-MBS) Submitted: July 19, 2006 Decided: August 2, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradley Todd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bradley Todd appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Todd that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Todd failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Todd has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15013]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 01-070]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.

DATES: June 14, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Heald, Patent Counsel, Kennedy 
Space Center, Mail Code CC-A, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899; telephone 
(321) 867-7214, fax (321) 867-1817.

NASA Case No. KSC-11991: Transient Voltage Recorder;
NASA Case No. KSC-11992: System and Method of Locating Lightning 
Strikes;
NASA Case No. KSC-12168: Personal Cabin Pressure Monitor and Warning 
System.

    Dated: June 4, 2001.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-15013 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
Order entered July 26 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00196
- CV
ERNEST LANELL BRONSO N, Appellant

V. HSBC BANK USA, Appellee On Appeal from the County Cou rt at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 05824
- C



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this appeal is past due. By postcard dated February 15, 2019, we notified Janet Wright, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 3, that th e reporter’s
record was overdue and directed her to file the reporter’s record within ten days. By order dated April 9, 2019, we again notified Ms. Wright the reporter’s record was overdue and ordered her to, within thirty days, file either (1) the report er’s record; (2) written verification no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant ha d not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s requested the reporter’s reco rd. By order dated June 21, 2019, we again
ordered Ms . Wright to file within either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record within ten days. In that order, we expresslycautioned Ms. Wright that failure to comply with the order would result in the Court taking such

actions as necessary to have her comply with the Court’s orders, including an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she complied. To date, Ms. Wright has not complied with the Court’s order nor otherwise communicated with the Court regarding the status of the reporter’s record in
this case. Therefore, we ORDER that Janet Wright, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 3, not sit as a court reporter until she has filed either (1) the complete reporter’s record in this appeal, (2) written verification no hearings were recorded, or (3) written verification that appellant has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the r eporter’s record.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to : Honorable Sally Montgomery Presiding Judge County Court at Law No. 3 Janet Wright Official Court Reporter County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County Auditor’s Office All parties

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        111


        <NAME>      Fidelity Diversified International Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

1,347,780


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

1,502,914


<RECEIVABLES>

63,177


<ASSETS-OTHER>

525


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

1,566,616


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

40,307


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

11,982


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

52,289


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

1,286,021


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

91,363


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

46,290


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

14,788


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

58,357


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

155,161


<NET-ASSETS>

1,514,327


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

27,305


<INTEREST-INCOME>

5,209


<OTHER-INCOME>

(2,409)


<EXPENSES-NET>

13,623


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

16,482


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

60,480


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

84,863


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

161,825


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

7,279


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

17,468


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

113,844


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

70,453


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

1,682


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

848,835


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

6,897


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

25,799


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

9,176


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

13,877


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

1,106,386


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

14.380


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .240


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

2.460


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .150


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

 .360


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

16.570


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

125


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
Richard RUSSELL, petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

No. 16-5657.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
nptn_Ex10_1


		
			Exhibit 10.1
		

		
			2016 EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PROGRAM
		

		
			On April 18, 2016, the Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors of NeoPhotonics Corporation (the “Company”) approved a 2016 performance bonus program (the “2016 Bonus Program”) for the Company’s executive officers and other employees. The Compensation Committee structured target bonuses for the fiscal year 2016 so that payouts would be determined based in part on achievement against corporate objectives, including: 
		

			

			
				 ·
			

		 
					
					
						 

				
	
					
						•

					
					
						Non-GAAP net income from operations for the fiscal year 2016; and

				
	
					
						•

					
					
						Completion of research and development product platforms expected to generate profitable revenue in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.

				



		
			 
		

		
			 For target bonuses for the fiscal year 2016, the Compensation Committee established performance goals for each of the above metrics that are aligned with corporate objectives. While these various performance goals were selected, they are merely non-binding guidelines to be used as one factor in determining the actual bonuses earned. 
		

		
			The Compensation Committee may in its discretion award up to fifty percent (50%) of the final earned 2016 bonuses to senior management and U.S. director level employees in the form of restricted stock units. 
		

		
			It is expected that, in the first quarter of 2017, the Compensation Committee will review the Company’s fiscal year 2016 corporate performance against each of the corporate goals and other aspects of corporate and individual performance to determine any actual bonus awards for performance related to the fiscal year 2016. 
		

		
			Target bonus percentages for the Company’s “named executive officers” for the prior year’s (2015) bonus program were established by the Compensation Committee in July 2015, as previously disclosed in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015.  It is expected that the Compensation Committee will review these target bonus percentages later in 2016 to evaluate whether they should be modified for the 2016 Bonus Program.