alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55101-55102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18658]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


National Urban & Community Forestry Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council 
will meet in Sacramento, California, October 18-20, 2005. The purpose 
of the meeting is to discuss emerging issues in urban and community 
forestry.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 18-20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Sacramento 
Northeast, 5321 Date Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95841. Individuals who wish 
to speak at the meeting or to propose agenda items must send their 
names and proposals to Suzanne M. del Villar, Executive Assistant, 
National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, P.O. Box 1003, 
Sugarloaf, CA 92386-1003. Individuals may fax their names and proposed 
agenda items to (909) 585-9527.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne M. del Villar, Urban and 
Community Forestry Staff, (909) 585-9268, or via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#205344454c56494c4c41526046530e4645440e5553"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0477606168726d686865764462772a6261602a7177">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Council 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members; 
however, persons who wish to bring urban and community forestry matters 
to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the 
Council staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will 
be provided.


[[Page 55102]]


    Dated: September 13, 2005.
Robin L. Thompson,
Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry.
[FR Doc. 05-18658 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# Time and Date:

9 a.m. (EDT), September 19, 2005. 

# Place:

4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

# Status:

Telephonic—parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered:

## Parts Open to the Public 

1. Approval of the minutes of the August 15, 2005, Board member meeting. 

2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director. 

3. FY 2005 expenditures, proposed FY 2006 budget, and FY 2006 estimate. 

## Parts Closed to the Public 

4. Procurement matters. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640. 

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

Elizabeth S. Woodruff, 

Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. 

[FR Doc. 05-18185 Filed 9-8-05; 4:40 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
1625.

#### Western & Atlantic Railroad Company *v.*Chatsworth Land Company.

Submitted February 24,

Decided March 16, 1909.

*Julian McCamy,tor*plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Rudolph, W. F. Mann,*contra.'

Powell, J.

The ease was tried in the city court of Dalton before Judge Longley, who overruled a motion for a new trial on the 29th of December, 1908. His term expired on the 31st of December, and he was succeeded by Judge Glenn. The bill of exceptions complaining of this ruling in overruling the motion for a new trial was presented to Judge Glenn and he signed it. The case is controlled by *Scott*v. *State,*ante, 812 (63 S. E. 936). *Writ of error dismissed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1289

TIBLTSE TEWOLDE,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. 

Submitted: August 25, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Goren, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GOREN, Silver Spring, Maryland,

for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General,

James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, William C. Minick,

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tibltse Tewolde, a native and citizen of Eritrea,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. We deny the

petition for review. 

This court reviews the Board’s denial of a motion to

reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008);

INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales,

450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). A denial of a motion to reopen

must be reviewed with extreme deference. Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d

587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). We will reverse a denial of a motion to

reopen only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to

law.” Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006)

(internal quotations and citation omitted). We have recognized

three independent grounds for denial of a motion to reopen removal

proceedings: “(1) the alien has not established a prima facie case

for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has not

introduced previously unavailable, material evidence; and (3) where

relief is discretionary, the alien would not be entitled to the

discretionary grant of relief.” Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234

(4th Cir. 1998). In explaining the degree of deference given to

the agency’s discretionary review, this court has observed that the

decision to deny a motion to reopen “need only be reasoned, not
3

convincing.” M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990) (en

banc) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The Board correctly denied the motion as untimely. See

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

(2008). In addition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in

finding Tewolde failed to show changed country conditions

warranting reopening. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
STATE of North Carolina v. Bobby Ray RICH, Defendant.

No. COA15-1204.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Herring v. Herring et al.

S16A1000

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: November 7, 2016

**PER CURIAM**.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6265

EDSON FURTADO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THOMAS MANGER, Chief,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv03403-RWT)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edson Furtado, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Edson Furtado appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Furtado v. Manger, No. 8:07-cv-03403-RWT (D. Md. Feb. 1,

2008). Furtado’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2008 – Cassegrain v OHIM (Shape of a bag)**

**(Case T-73/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark – Shape of a bag – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27-28)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 December 2005 (Case R 687/2005-2) concerning the registration of the figurative sign Shape of a bag as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Jean Cassegrain SAS |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark representing a bag for goods in Class 18 – Application No 003598571 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Jean Cassegrain SAS to pay the costs. |
John M. McCORMICK, Employee v. EXEL/DPWN HOLDINGS, INC., Employer, Self-Insured (Sedgwick CMS, Servicing Agent).

No. 401P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Kathleen G. Sumner, Greensboro, Attorney at Law, for McCormick, John M.

Brooke A. Mulenex, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Exel/DPWN Holdings, Inc., et al.

M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Exel/DPWN Holdings, Inc., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 1st of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Patrick Vogt, certify that:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)
|   
|(3)
|   
|(4)

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
  regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and 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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
  quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

|   
|---
|(5)

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation 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 other employees
  who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
  reporting.

|                            |  |  |     |                                             | 
|--------------------------- |  |  | --- | ------------------------------------------- | 
|Dated: April 26,
      2007 |  |  | By: | /s/
      PATRICKVOGT                       | 
|                            |  |  |     | Patrick Vogt                                | 
|                            |  |  |     | President and Chief
      Executive Officer | 





---
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Hr. II.A. Hodges County Auditor I Williamson county .' Georgetown, Texzs
Dear Sir: cpinion no. O-404 Re: Sheriff's and misdemeanor examining trYa%?.
Your request for opinion *Would the sheriff

FrocedureV

cr attaching witnesses in the county where case is pdnding. Prcvided nc sheriff cr constable shell receive from the State any additicnal mileage for any subsequent arrest of 3 defendant in the same case, or in any ether case in an exanining court or in any district ccurt bssed upon the same charge cr upon the same criminal act, or growing out cf the same criminal transaction, whether the arrest is made with or without 3 warrant, or before or after indictment, and in no event shallMr. LT. A. Hodges,Xarch 8, 1939, Page 2.

he be allowea to duplicatehis fees for mileage for making arrests,with or withoutwarrant, or when two or more warrants 0r arrest or caplasesare served or could have been served on the same aerendanton any one day." Article 1072 of the Code Or CriminalProcedure of Texas reads as r0ii0ws:

"Sheriffsand constablesservingprocess and attendingany examining court in the examlnation or a misdemeanorcase shallbe entitledto such fees as are allowedby law for similar servicesin the trial of such cases, not to exceed three dollars in any one *ase, to be paid by the defendantin uase of final conviciion.w You will note that paragraph2 of Article 1020 of the Code of CriminalProcedureprovidesa manner in which sheriffsand constableson the fee systemmay collectmileage In felony examining trial cases from the State of Texas. You will also 'note that Article 1072 of the'COde Or CriminalProcedureprescribesthe amount or $3.00 as the limit of fees which the sheriffand constable may receive in misdemeanorexaminingtrial cases. It will be further noted that there is no provision whatever made in Article 1072 of the Code of Criminal Procedurefor the payment of any mileage to the sheriffand constable. It will be noted further that the fees charged in Article 1072, Code Or CriminalProcedure, are charged against the defendantand not against the State of Texas, as in Article 1020.

YOU are, therefore, ~respectfully

advised that it is the opinion of this Department that the sheriff or constable would not be allowedmileage in an examiningtrial in a misdemeanor ~390 in eadition to the sum of $3.00 or an amount less than $3.00, as set out under Article 1072 of the Code or crImIna1Procedure. It, is the opinion of this Departmentthat the sheriff or constable cannot charge or collectmore than $3.00 as his fees in a'n examining trial in a misdemeanorcase. Very truly yours ATTORNEXCZNERAI.

OF TEXAS

BY (Signed)

wm. J. Fanning Assistant
Exhibit 32.1

Certification



Pursuant
to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Ronald W. Bachli hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | He is the duly appointed Chief Executive Officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares, a California corporation (the Company).
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1
(the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 28th day of October 2005.



PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES/s/ Ronald W. BachliRonald W. Bachli Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.21

18 December 2001



PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

Mr Nico Sciacovelli
Via Niccolini
N 75/3, 16166
Genova
Italy

Dear Nico

VARIATION TO YOUR SERVICE AGREEMENT

Pursuant to your Service Agreement dated 1 December 1999 and discussions with
Cronos, I understand it has been agreed that clause 1.2.1 of your Service
Agreement shall be deleted and the following new clause 1.2.1 inserted in its
place:

         "The appointment commenced on 1 December 1999 and shall continue
         (subject to earlier termination as provided in this Agreement) until 30
         November 2003 and thereafter shall continue until terminated by either
         party giving to the other not less than 3 months written notice".

I should be grateful if you would sign and return the attached copy of this
letter confirming your acceptance to the above variation to your Service
Agreement.

Yours sincerely

/s/ PETER J YOUNGER

Peter J Younger

Director
Cronos Containers S.r.L

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

I confirm that I accept the above variation to my Service Agreement.

Signed   /s/ NICO SCIACOVELLI

         NICO SCIACOVELLI
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3802 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3802

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend the legislative authority of the Adams Memorial Foundation to 
establish a commemorative work in honor of former President John Adams 
                and his legacy, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR MEMORIAL 
              ESTABLISHMENT.

    Section 1 of Public Law 107-62 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note), as amended by 
Public Law 111-169, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2020'' in 
        subsection (c); and
            (2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
    ``(e) Deposit of Excess Funds for Established Memorial.--
            ``(1) If upon payment of all expenses for the establishment 
        of the memorial (including the maintenance and preservation 
        amount required by section 8906(b)(1) of title 40, United 
        States Code), there remains a balance of funds received for the 
        establishment of the commemorative work, the Adams Memorial 
        Foundation shall transmit the amount of the balance to the 
        account provided for in section 8906(b)(3) of title 40, United 
        States Code.
            ``(2) If upon expiration of the authority for the 
        commemorative work under section 8903(e) of title 40, United 
        States Code, there remains a balance of funds received for the 
        establishment of the commemorative work, the Adams Memorial 
        Foundation shall transmit the amount of the balance to a 
        separate account with the National Park Foundation for 
        memorials, to be available to the Secretary of the Interior or 
        the Administrator (as appropriate) following the process 
        provided for in section 8906(b)(4) of title 40, United States 
        Code, for accounts established under section 8906(b)(2) or (3) 
        of title 40, United States Code.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3802

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To extend the legislative authority of the Adams Memorial Foundation to 
establish a commemorative work in honor of former President John Adams 
                and his legacy, and for other purposes.
```
Robert A. IZYDORE v. CITY OF DURHAM (Durham Board of Adjustment).

No. 404P13-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Emanuel D. McGirt, Senior Assistant City Attorney, for City of Durham (Durham Board of Adjustment).

Robert A. Izydore, for Izydore, Robert A.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of November 2015 by Petitioner in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."