alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 307TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 29th 

day of July, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

In the Interest of K.D., a Minor Child No. 06-15-00012-CV

Trial Court No. 2014-70-DR

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. We affirm that part of the trial court’s judgment finding that Mother’s Affidavit 

of Relinquishment is valid and enforceable as between the parties. We reverse that portion of the 

trial court’s judgment finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in K.D.’s best interest 

and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial on whether termination is in K.D.’s best 

interest.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated her inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs. 

We further note that the payment of costs is waived pursuant to Section 40.062 of the Texas 

Human Resources Code. See TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 40.062 (West 2013).

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 14th day of October, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANTE ESGUERRA-DE VERA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70734

Agency No. A077-302-546

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Dante Esguerra-De Vera, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUN 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70734

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s findings of fact, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (per

curiam), and review de novo due process claims, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439

F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Esguerra-De Vera

suffered past persecution or has a well founded fear of future persecution on

account of his social group, political opinion, or any other protected ground. See

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481-84, 481 n.1; Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d

1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account

of a protected ground). Accordingly, Esguerra-De Vera’s asylum claim fails.

Because Esguerra-De Vera failed to meet the lower burden of proof for

asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Esguerra-De Vera fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his

CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)

(issues not addressed in argument portion of brief are deemed waived).

Finally, Esguerra-De Vera’s due process claim fails because he has not

demonstrated that he suffered prejudice resulting from any transcription error. See
3 09-70734

Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d at 620-21 (prejudice is required to prevail on due process

claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 186704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9023]




[[Page 186703]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Bureau of Indian Affairs



_______________________________________________________________________



Indian Gaming; Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 1995 / 
Notices 
[[Page 186704]] 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of approved second amendment to Tribal/State compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2710, of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-497), the Secretary of the Interior shall 
publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved Tribal/State 
Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III (casino) gaming on 
Indian reservations. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, through her delegated authority, has 
approved the Second Amendment to the Tribal/State Gaming Compact 
Between the Nooksack Indian Tribe and the State of Washington executed 
on January 26, 1995.

DATES: This action is effective April 12, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Indian 
Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 
20240, (202) 219-4068.

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-9023 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of American Bio Medica Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008 (the "Report"), I,
      Stefan Parker, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      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/
                Stefan ParkerStefan
                Parker
              Chief
                Financial Officer and
              Executive
                Vice PresidentMarch 28,
              2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
          the year ended March 30, 1999 Form 10K Balance Sheets and
          Statements of Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference
          to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                 0000897315
<NAME>                American Tax Credit Trust
<MULTIPLIER>          1,000
<CURRENCY>            US Dollars

<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        MAR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>           MAR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>             MAR-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1.00
<CASH>                           937
<SECURITIES>                     998
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                12,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            910
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  12,716
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 136
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,170)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1,170)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,170)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (62.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0


</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4899

Arrowhead Electrical Products, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6715

BYD Motors, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/84_FR_21389.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7764]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP93-34-000, RP94-227-000, CP94-254-000, CP94-751-000, 
CP94-211-000, CP94-676-000, CP95-70-000, CP95-153-000, RS92-87-000, 
CP95-112-000]


Transwestern Pipeline and Transwestern Gathering Companies; 
Settlement Conference

March 24, 1995.
    Take notice that a settlement conference will be convened in the 
above-docketed proceedings on Thursday, March 30, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., 
in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. for the 
purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the above-captioned 
Transwestern Pipeline Company proceedings. The conference may continue 
on Friday, March 31, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., for the purpose of discussing 
the settlement of the certificate proceedings.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined in 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party to any of the above-docketed proceedings must move to 
intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's 
regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, please contact Scott E. Koves at (202) 
208-0492.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7764 Filed 3-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### WILSON RADIO COMPANY, INC., v. JOSEPH G. OVERMAN, JR., and WATSON INDUSTRIES, INC.

(Filed 24 February, 1954.)

Appeal by defendant Watson Industries, Inc., from *Bone, Resident Judge*of Second Judicial District at Chambers in Nashville, North Carolina, 16 January, 1954, upon notice duly given.

Civil action for injunctive relief, and to recover damages of defendants for alleged breach by defendant Joseph G. Overman, Jr., of contract of employment, dated 26 June, 1953, in respect to preparing, broadcasting, and disseminating weather information exclusively for plaintiff, and not for any other corporation, firm or person, either by radio, television or any other means except by and with the consent of plaintiff,- — in which breach of contract defendant, Watson Industries, Inc., participated, by unlawfully conspiring with defendant to bring about the breach.

Defendant Watson Industries, Inc., demurred to the complaint for that it appears on the face thereof that there is a misjoinder of parties defendant, and of causes of action.

The demurrer was overruled, and defendant Watson Industries, Inc., appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*Carr & Gibbons for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Lucas, Rand & Rose for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment below is accordant with the principles stated and applied in the eases of *Sineath v. Katzis,*218 N.C. 740, 12 S.E. 2d 671, and of *Winston v. Lumber Co.,*227 N.C. 339, 42 S.E. 2d 218. Hence the judgment is hereby

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, David R. Callen, hereby certify that the June 30, 2010 AnnualReport on Form 10-K as filed by Ethan Allen Interiors Inc. (the “Company”),which contains the Company’s financial statements, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information containedin such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                |   |   | Vice  President, Finance |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
| /s/ David R. Callen |   |   | and  Treasurer           |
| (David R. Callen)   |   |   |                     |

 

 

August 19, 2010

 

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 27, 2018. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 27, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18I0254. STATE ROAD AND TOLLWAY AUTHORITY v. CATRINA DEESE BODAMER.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 16110138
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16653-16654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7990]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Advisory Committees; Renewals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
renewal of the Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner 
of Food and Drugs. This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act of October 6, 1972 (Pub. L. 92-463 (5 U.S.C. app.2)).

DATES: Authority for this committee will expire on February 15, 1997, 
unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the 
public interest.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna M. Combs, Committee Management 
Office (HFA-306), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-2765.

    [[Page 16654]] Dated: March 24, 1995.
Linda A. Suydam,
Interim Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
[FR Doc. 95-7990 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Grant, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree and assault in the third degree. He was originally charged with rape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, assault in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, all arising out of an incident that occurred on July 14, 1985, during which it was alleged that defendant broke into the apartment of a female acquaintance and forcibly raped and physically assaulted her. The court dismissed the weapons possession charge at the close of the People’s case and the jury acquitted defendant on the rape charge.

Defendant, relying upon *People v Gaines*(74 NY2d 358), contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction for burglary because the People failed to establish that he harbored an intent to commit a crime at the time that he entered the complainant’s apartment. The fact that defendant was acquitted of the rape charge does not require that his conviction for burglary be set aside. To secure a conviction for burglary, the People need not establish what particular crime the intruder intended to commit, nor is it necessary that the intended crime in fact be committed *(People v Mackey,*49 NY2d 274, 279). The requisite criminal intent may be inferred from the circumstances of the breaking and entering *(see, People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 379; *People v Gilligan,*42 NY2d 969; *People v Henderson,*41 NY2d 233, 236-237; *People v Anderson,*103 AD2d 1011, 1012; *People v Terry,*43 AD2d 875).

*1022It is undisputed that defendant forcibly entered the complainant’s apartment by breaking the lock on her door after unsuccessfully attempting to gain entry by falsely identifying himself as complainant’s fiancé. Considering his manner of entry, the jury could have concluded that defendant entered the apartment with the intent to commit a crime. There was also proof that defendant asked the victim for money and that violence and sexual activity took place. Thus, the requisite intent to commit a crime upon entering complainant’s apartment could reasonably be inferred from the circumstances of defendant’s forcible entry into the premises and his conduct once inside *(see, People v Barnes, supra; People v Mackey, supra; People v Gilligan, supra).*Further, we conclude that the jury’s verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

There is no merit to defendant’s contention that he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. On this record, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—burglary, first degree.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
tmoq110ex10_1.htm


    
                                                                                                                                                                                        
Exhibit 10.1

       

                    
          SUMMARY OF
ANNUAL NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

      
 

      I.           Board Members (Other than
the Chairman)

      


      A.         Annual
Cash Compensation

       

           Annual Cash
Retainer:                                                                                                                                      $80,000

       

                  
Additional Cash Retainer for Chairman of Audit
Committee:                                                                     $20,000

       

           Additional
Cash Retainer for Chairs of Compensation Committee,

                   Nominating
and Corporate Governance Committee, Strategy and

                  
Finance
Committee and Corporate Social Responsibility
Committee:                                                       $10,000

      


      


      B.         Equity
Compensation

       

                  
Annual equity grants are made upon the recommendation of the Compensation
Committee.

      


      


      


      II.          Chairman of the
Board

       

      A.         Annual
Cash Compensation

       

                  
Annual Cash Compensation (in lieu of annual
retainer):                                                                          
$250,000

      


      B.         Equity
Compensation

       

           Annual equity grants
are made upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee.

      


      


      III.        Travel
Expenses

    

     

    
           Directors
are reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending
meetings.