alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
7428 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 / Presidential Documents

(4)(a) The modifications to the HTS made by paragraph (1)(a) of this

proclamation shall be effective with respect to articles that are: (i) imported

on or after January 1, 1976, and (ii) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse

for consumption, on or after 15 days after the date of publication of this

proclamation in the Federal Register.

(b) The modifications to the HTS made by paragraphs (1)(b), (1)(c), and

(2) shall be effective on July 1, 1995.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thisthird day of

February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-five, and

of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

Billing code 3195–01–P

Annex I—Modifications to General Note 4(d) of the HTS

Effective with respect to articles both: (i) imported on or after January 1, 1976, and (ii)

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 1, 1995.

and nineteenth.

œ–

General note 4(d) is modified by:

(a) deleting the following HTS subheadings and the country set out opposite such subheadings:

3909.10.00 .... Israel

4011.91.50 .... Israel

8419.19.00 .... Israel

8419.90.10 .... Israel

8517.30.15 .... Israel

(b) deleting the country set out opposite the following HTS subheadings:

2903.40.40 .... Israel

2903.59.40 .... Israel

2918.90.30 .... Bahamas

2933.40.10 .... Israel

7113.19.50 .... Israel

[FR Doc. 95–3218

Filed 2-6-95; 11:08 am]

Billing code 3190–01–P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7673

CHRISTOPHER A. IRELAND, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES DARREN BYERS, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-97-952-1) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher A. Ireland, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James Darren Byers, LAW OFFICE OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Ireland appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. Appellee J. Darren Byers has moved to dismiss Ireland’s appeal. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order on the reasoning of the district court. Ireland v. Byers , No. CA-97-952-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 1998). We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the case with prejudice. We deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss as moot. 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
Exhibit 10.3


 


Mark Hanchett


 


At this time, Atlis employees are compensated on a split salary/equity basis. Your cash compensation will be 70%
of your $200,000.00 annual salary, which equates to $5,384.62 bi-weekly. The remaining 30% of your compensation will be paid by virtue
of a stock award. As a bonus, we will award you an additional 15% stock compensation, so long as we are able. In your case, you will
be awarded 420.09 shares per pay period. Each stock award will become fully vested at the conclusion of each pay period, and we will
issue you an assignment of stock on a quarterly or annual basis. We intend to provide you this benefit for the foreseeable future, but
we reserve the right to revert to a full cash compensation model at any time. At that time and as soon as financially feasible, you will
receive the 30% of your salary that was compensated via stock award.


 


 


To thank you for all that you have done to make ATLIS successful, as communicated in December 2020 you were also
awarded 100 shares that are fully vested.


 


 


 


 


 





	/s/ Mark Hanchett	 
	 
	Employee Signature
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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

5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31037 Summary Calendar

LAURA SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant - Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1900

April 9, 2001

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Both parties appeal the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s rulings on post-verdict

motions in this diversity jurisdiction, personal inj ury action. Laura Smith seeks2

recovery under Louisiana law for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall accident

in a retail establishment of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The jury found the relevant accident

51% the fault of Wal-Mart and 49% that of Smith and then assessed damages. WalMart challenges the negligence findings and quantum; Smith challenges the quantum.

This case presents a classic example of a jury’s evaluation of the totality of

circumstances presented in litigation and its notable effort to achieve a just result

thereof. After reviewing the record, briefs, and relevant Louisiana jurisprudence, we

perceive no basis in law or equity requiring appellate court rejection of the jury’s

verdict or the post-verdict rulings by the trial court.

The judgment and rulings appealed are all AFFIRMED.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00377

- CV

IN RE WAYLAND TERRY GREEN RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. CR12 187

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

D ELIVERED: December 5 , 2014

1 See Tex. R . App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).
#### C. E. WRIGHT v. BEMIS LUMBER COMPANY and L. W. WILSON.

(Filed 27 June, 1931.)

Removal of Causes C 1) — Petition for removal on ground of fraudulent joinder and separable controversy held properly refused in this case.

Where a petition and bond are filed by a nonresident defendant to remove a cause from the State to the Federal Court on the ground of alleged fraudulent joinder of the resident defendant to defeat the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, the allegations of the complaint of a breach of duty by each of the defendants to the plaintiff proximately causing the injury is sufficient to retain the cause in the State court.

Appeal by defendant, Bemis Lumber Company, from *Moore, J.,*at February Term, 1931, of Haywood.

Affirmed.

*Jones & Ward for plaintiff.*

*R. L. Phillips for defendant, Bemis Lumber Company.*

*185ClaeKSON, J.

This is an action brought by plaintiff against defendants to recover damages. Giving the complaint a liberal construction, it is an action for actionable negligence against both defendants as joint *tort-feasors.*It alleges a duty owed by both defendants to plaintiff, the nonperformance of which duty it is alleged was the proximate cause of injury to plaintiff. The Bemis Lumber Company, a nonresident corporation defendant, duly filed its petition and bond for removal of the action to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina, for trial, on the ground of fraudulent joinder of L. W.. Wilson, a resident defendant. The court below made an order refusing the petition of Bemis Lumber Company for removal. *Crisp v. Fibre Co.,*193 N. C., 77*Hurt v. Mfg. Co.,*198 N. C., 1; *Tron v. Refining Co.,*199 N. C., 816. From the record, serious questions may arise on the trial, which we do not now consider. The case is not before us on demurrer. We pass alone on the petition of the Bemis Lumber Company for removal to the Federal Court, as that is the only question presented. *Huntley v. Express Co.,*191 N. C., 696. The judgment below is

Affirmed. •
EXHIBIT 32.2



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual
Report of Premiere Global Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Michael E.
Havener, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Michael E. HavenerMichael E. HavenerChief Financial OfficerPremiere Global Services, Inc.March 14, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4082]



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

 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration


Advisory Committee; Establishment

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from the mining community, the Mine 
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is extending the time period to 
submit comments regarding the establishment of an advisory committee to 
eliminate pneumoconiosis among coal miners.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Office of Standards, 
Regulations and Variances, MSHA, Room 631, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office 
of Standards, Regulations and Variances, MSHA, (703) 235-1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 31, 1995, the Secretary of Labor 
published a notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 5947) announcing the 
establishment of an advisory committee on the elimination of 
pneumoconiosis among coal miners. Comments regarding the establishment 
of the committee were due on February 15, 1995.
    In response to requests from the mining community, the Agency is 
extending the comment period until March 1, 1995.

    Dated: February 14, 1995.
J. Davitt McAteer,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 95-4082 Filed 2-14-95; 4:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by

designation.

** Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that haveno precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of wellsettled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________
No. 93-7372

_______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOSE LUIS MARTINEZ

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(CR C-87-109-1)

_________________________ (April 8, 1994)

Before SMITH and BARKSD ALE, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, * District Judge.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: **

Jose Martinez appeals the district court's denial of his

motion to change the post-imprisonment portion of his sentence from

a special parole term to supervised release. Finding no error, we

affirm.2 I.

Martinez pleaded guilty in April 1988 to possession with

intent to distribute approximately fifteen kilograms of marihuana,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). He received

a sentence of four years' confinement, a four-year special parole

term, and a special assessment of $50.

In February 1993, following his relea se from prison,

Martinez's supervising probation officer issued a pro bable cause

warrant for Martinez's arrest based upon a belief that Martinez had

v iolated his parole. Martinez surrendered and was imprisoned in

March 1993 for violating parole.

Martinez moved to correct his sentence, arguing that he should

have received a term of supervised release under § 1002 of the

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 ("ADAA"), and Gozlon-Peretz v. United

States
, 498 U.S. 395 (1991). The district court denied the motion

as the statute under which Martin ez was convicted, 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(D), was not governed by § 1002.

II.

Martinez argues that, under the reasoning of Gozlon-Per etz
,

§ 1002 designates offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) as having

supervised release. We review the motion to correct sentence under

F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 35 for gross abuse of discretion. U nited States v.

Hanyard , 762 F.2d 1226, 1228 (5th Cir. 1985).

The issue in this case i s not the effective date of § 1002,

see Gozlon-Peretz

, 498 U.S. at 409, but whether the offense in this3

case was desi gnated as an offense requiring supervised release

under § 1002. We conclude that it was not. Section 1002

redesignated § 841(b)(1)(C) as § 84 1(b)(1)(D) and amended

§ 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b )(1)(C) to reflect terms of

supervised release instead of special parole. The special parole

term in § 841(b)(1)(D) remained unaffected until November 1, 1987,

when it was amended by § 1004 of the ADAA. G ozlon-Peretz

, 498 U.S.

at 406 n.10. Since Martinez's offense occurred in March 1987, the

district court correctly denied his motion to replace his special

parole term with a term of supervised release.

AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3154

___________

Ralph Read, M.D.; *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

United States of America, ex rel., *

Ralph Read, M.D., * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

Plaintiff, * of South Dakota.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Central Plains Clinic; Medical X-Ray *

Center, P.C., *

*

Defendants-Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 10, 1999

Filed: May 20, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Having unsuccessfully appealed to this court twice before, Ralph Read now

appeals from the district court's adverse ruling dismissing Read's qui tam action against

Central Plains Clinic and Medical X-Ray Center, P.C. Having reviewed the record and

the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court's ruling was correct and an extended
-2-

discussion is not warranted. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 18 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
St ep he n Eu ge ne Whi te
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Aug us t 1 , 20 13 Fil ed : Au gu st 8, 2 01 3 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

St ep he n Whi te di rect ly ap pe al s th e el ev en -m on th pr is on te rm th at th e di st ric t
co ur t im po se d up on rev ok in g hi s su p e r vi se d rel eas e. His co un se l ha s m ov ed to 1

The Hon or ab le Je an C. Ham il to n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.wit hd raw, an d ha s fi l e d a br ie f in di cat in g th at th ere is no is su e of arg ua bl e m eri t in

th is cas e.
Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a st at ut or il y
au th or iz ed rev oc at io n se nt en ce, gi ve n th at Whi te ’s un de rlyin g of fen se was a Cl as s C fel on y
. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e) ( 3 ) ( co ur t m ay im po se rev oc at io n se nt en ce of no
m or e th an 2 y ears in pr is on if un de rlyin g o f f e n s e was Cl as s C fel on y ). W e fu rth er
co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ci ng de ci si on refl ect s no ab us e of di sc ret io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Mi ll er, 55 7 F.3 d 9 1 0 , 91 5- 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (co ur t rev ie ws
rev oc at io n se nt en ci ng de ci si on s us in g sa m e st an da rd s as ap pl ie d to in it ia l se nt en ci ng de ci si on s) ; Uni te d St at es v. Perk in s, 52 6 F.3 d 11 07 , 11 10 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ap pe ll at e
co ur t rev ie ws rev oc at io n se nt en c e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, en su rin g se nt en ce is

reas on ab le ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (d es cri bi ng way s in whi ch di st ric t co ur t m ig ht be f o u n d to ha ve co m

m it te d ab us e o f di sc ret io n)

.
The jud gm en t is affi rm ed

. In ad di ti on , we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
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 Veterans Affairs

# AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs.

# ACTION:

Notice—Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        On February 2, 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         announcing publication of the Draft Master Plan for the West Los Angeles Department of Veterans Affairs campus. That notice contained language that we are now clarifying.                    

# DATES:

These corrections will be effective as of February 12, 2016.

## Correction

                    The notice VA published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 2, 2016 (81 FR 552), stated on page 5526, in the third column:                 

“The proposed timeline involves developing 60 units within the next 12 months, 150 units over the next 24 to 30 months, 280 units over the next 30 months, 280 units over the next 4 to 5 years, and 430 units over the next 6 to 10 years—all totaling 1,200 units.” 

As a clarification, that sentence is being replaced with the following sentence: 

“Specifically, after legislative enactment, the proposed timeline involves developing 490 units within the first 30 months, 280 additional units within 4 to 5 years, and 430 additional units within 6 to 10 years—all totaling 1,200 units.”

Dated: February 9, 2016.

William F. Russo,

Office of the General Counsel, US Department of Veterans Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2016-02883 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.19

 February 4, 2002
 Joey DiFrancesco
 Raven Moon Entertainment

 re: Mr Bicycle Man Music Video

 Joey,
 We are excited about moving ahead on production of this music video. The budget
 for this video is $9,500 and is based on the following assumptions:

 Assumptions:

*    Limited animation and keeping character animation down to 1 kid on a bike
     and one policeman.

* Photo or video backgrounds will be used.

*    Gina and Joey will be photographed in an animated way for 2 sequences with
     the video.

*    The animation of the first half of the video will be repeated for the
     second half of the video and will have its timing adjusted to match the
     audio.

* Audio delivered to us on CD is the final audio.


* Joey and Gina will be available on the same day as the location shoot.

*    Locations will be located in downtown Orlando. Locations to be approved by
     Raven Moon.

*    Production will take place between other A&S Animation projects. Every
     effort will be made to complete this project in a timely manner.

*    Production time should be around 3 weeks, not including delays by other
     projects.

 Production Schedule:

*    Schedule is approximate and not guaranteed. Schedule assumes initial
     payment made on Tuesday Feb 5th.

*    Once initial payment is received, storyboarding, location scouting and
     character design begins.

*    Storyboards will be complete within 2-3 days. Approval should take 1 day or
     less.

      813'7 Lake Crowell Cir Orlando, Florida 32836 407-370-2673
      www.FunnyToons.tv


<PAGE>


*    Location shooting should take place as soon as storyboards are approved, as
     early as Friday Feb 8 or Monday Feb 11.

*    Photo animation of Gina and some character animation should be complete by
     Friday Feb 15.

* Final animation and compositing should be complete by Friday Feb 22.

 Payment Schedule:

 $3,166 initial payment to begin production.

 $3,166   2nd Payment once storyboards are complete, character design is
          approved and locations are shot, or about 10 days after initial
          payment.

 $3,168 final payment once VHS copy of video is approved. Master tape of video
 will then be delivered.

If you are in agreement to these terms, please sign here for our records.



Joey DiFrancesco, President, Raven Moon Entertainment


 Thank you.


 Sincerely,



 Mark Simon
 Producer
 A&S Animation, Inc.
Order entered March 28, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01200
- CR IOANNIS MAKRIS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal Di strict Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 16
- 00419
- X



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s March 26, 2019 second motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or
bef ore APRIL 25, 2019 . If appellant’s brief is not filed by April 25, 2019, this appeal may be abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure
38.8 (b)(2).

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE