alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60091-60093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24427]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory Personnel 
Management Demonstration Project, Department of the Army, Army 
Research, Development and Engineering Command, Armament Research, 
Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC); Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian 
Personnel Policy) (DUSD (CPP)), Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice of proposal to design and implement a personnel 
management demonstration project; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2010 (75 FR 55199), DoD published a notice 
concerning the proposed conversion of certain National Security 
Personnel System (NSPS)-covered employees to a personnel management 
demonstration project before the end of April 2011. The proposal 
pertains to NSPS-covered employees at the Army Research, Development 
and Engineering Command, Armament Research, Development and Engineering 
Center (ARDEC). Within that notice the descriptors for levels IV and V 
are incorrect under factor 1-1 and level VI was erroneously added to 
factor 2-3. This notice corrects those errors.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before October 12, 2010 
(see the September 9, 2010, notice for details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    ARDEC: Ms. Christina Duncan, U.S. Army ARDEC, Human Capital 
Management Office, Building 1, 3rd Floor, RDAR-EIH, Picatinny Arsenal, 
NJ 07806-5000.
    DoD: Ms. Betty Duffield, CPMS-PSSC, Suite B-200, 1400 Key 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209-5144.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Corrections

    In the notice published on September 9, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010-
22280:
    1. On pages 55225 and 55226, in the table under factor 1-1, the 
entries for descriptor Levels I, II, III, and VI are republished and 
the entries for descriptor Levels IV and V are corrected to read:

[[Page 60092]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE10.000


[[Page 60093]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE10.001

    2. On page 55236, in the table under factor 2-3, the entry for 
descriptor Level VI is removed.

    Dated: September 22, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-24427 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Brigham ExplorationCompany (the “Company”) on Form 10-K, for the period ended December 31, 2003(the “Report”), I, Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify that:
(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. Dated: March 26, 2004 /s/ Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors



 EXHIBIT 10.79 
 Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Incentive Plan Criteria 
 The Annual Incentive Plan rewards performance based upon
consolidated, business unit and individual results. The named executive officers are assigned the following Target Award Percentage of their base salary for fiscal year 2009 Annual Incentive Awards: 
  

			
	     Level    
	  	 Target Award Percentage

	 CEO
	  	110%
	 13
	  	95%
	 12
	  	75%
	 11
	  	65%

 Awards are based upon the consolidated results of the Company and/or the individual’s business unit results.
The weighting factors for corporate and business unit performance for named executive officers is as follows: 
  

			
	               Level              
	  	 Corporate / Business Unit Weight

	 CEO and Level 13
	  	100% / 0%
	 11-12
	  	80% / 20%

 The payout multiple of a participant’s Target Award Percentage, depending upon whether threshold, target,
distinguished or super-distinguished performance is achieved is as follows: 
  

			
	 Payout Multiple of Target Award Percentage
	  	 
	 Threshold
	  	25%
	 Target
	  	100%
	 Distinguished
	  	150%
	 Super-Distinguished
	  	200%

 The consolidated results of the Company shall be measured based upon a pro forma return on equity
(“ROE”) calculation. ROE shall be calculated as consolidated net income divided by consolidated pro forma equity. 
  

 E-13
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (SEC File Nos. 333-59307, 333-350660,333-67520 and 333-108868) and on Form S-3 (SEC File Nos. 333-60552 and 333-71940) of our report dated November 18, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Notify Technology Corporation for the year ended September 30,2005, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. 

 

/s/    L.L. Bradford & Company LLC 

 

Las Vegas, NV 

December 22, 2005
M A N D A T E

TO THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF EL PASO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, on March 9, 2018, the cause upon

appeal to revise or reverse your judgment

IN THE MATTER OF THE TEMPORARY

GUARDIANSHIP OF THE PERSON AND

ESTATE OF EDUARDO FUENTES

VARELA, AN ADULT,

No. 08-17-00205-CV

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

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be

certified below for observance.

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

Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized,

obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of

El Paso, this May 24, 2018

.

Denise Pacheco, Clerk

Trial Court No. 2016-CGD00220
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,053
<SECURITIES>                                    71,410
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,250)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,530
<PP&E>                                          20,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,593)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       117,084
<OTHER-SE>                                       (737)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,617
<SALES>                                         14,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,311
<CGS>                                            2,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,522)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,522)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### Webster *v.*Indiana Department of Public Instruction.

[No. 19,668.

Filed January 2, 1962.]

*596
      *Frank A. Webster, pro se.*

*Edwin K. Steers,*Attorney General, and *Harold H. Kohlmeyer,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Ryan, C. J.

The appellant filed the following assignment of errors:

> “1. The administrative board erred in its conclusions of law in denying the appellants claim for workmen’s compensation on the basis that the injury, etc., did not arise out of and was not within the course of employment.

> *“2.*The administrative board erred in its failure to consider certain evidence tendered by the appellants designated as Items No. 1 and No. 2 in the record.”

to which the appellee has filed its motion to dismiss.

The transcript does not contain any award. We are thus unable to determine whether the Full Industrial Board made an award, or if they did, what that award was. It is axiomatic that in civil cases the final judgment is part of the record and must appear therein or else we cannot determine a question concerning it on appeal. *Acme-Goodrich, Inc.*v. *Neal, Executor etc.*(1959), 129 Ind. App. 614, 156 N. E. 2d 790. It seems only logical that to determine the correctness of an award by the Industrial Board, the same should be in the record.

Further, we have held that under the statute, Burns’ §40-1512, that the only avenue of review is the assignment that the award of the Full Board is contrary to law.

As we said in *LaReau*v. *Teibel et al. etc.*(1956), 127 Ind. App. 92, 138 N. E. 2d 153, at 127 Ind. App. page 98:

> *597“It does not appear logical nor conducive to proper and understandable appellate procedure that an appellant should be authorized to assign asserted errors in promiscuous and unrestricted fashion. Such authorization could result only in unwieldiness, indefiniteness and uncertainty, and cast upon the court the irksome duty in many cases of endeavoring to unravel diverse, contradictory and ofttimes ill-phrased attempted assignments of error. Further, grievous delay in deciding appealed causes would probably become the rule rather than the exception; and the oftstated legislative intent to provide for the expeditious consideration of compensation cases would be frustrated. It seems more consonant with the indicated holdings of our courts, the acknowledged legislative intent, and efficient appellate procedure to hold that in appeals from the Industrial Board under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act the statutory assignment that the award is contrary to law is the proper and only efficacious assignment of error, and is sufficient to warrant the appropriate presentation in appellant’s brief of all asserted propositions of error.”

An examination of the transcript also shows that there has been no certification thereof.

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 178 N. E. 2d 909.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Keith JENKINS.

No. 2010-KO-1926.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Jenkins, Keith; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 476-958; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-1665.

Denied.
#### Desi FULMER v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES and Gary Pierce.

No. 2010-C-2779.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; Pierce, Gary; State of Louisiana, et al.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 51-232; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0088.

Granted.
#### STATE ex rel. Randy Ray CARSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1080.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Carson, Randy Ray; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 433,690; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA1577.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.27

Merchandise License Agreement

"Licensor":             American Champion Media, Inc.
                        1694 The Alameda, Suite 100
                        San Jose, CA 95126
                        Contact:  Anthony Chan        Phone: (408) 288-8199
                                                        Fax: (408) 288-8098

 "Licensee":            Timeless Toys
                        1165 Chess Drive, Suite C
                        Foster City, CA 94404
                        Contact: Harold Nizamian      Phone: (650) 574-5480
                                                        Fax: (650) 574-3890

"Effective Date" of the Agreement is upon signing.

"Properties" are the following Characters or other trademarks:  Kanga Roddy and
all related  characters seen in the Adventures with Kanga Roddy television
program.

"Products" that Licensee is authorized to produce are non-articulated plush
sizes 4.5" - 36",  plush backpacks, plush fanny packs, plush hand puppets and
plush key chains which bear the  Properties.

"Trademarks" being licensed to Licensee are Kanga Roddy and all related
characters.

"Territory" where Licensee can sell Products is United States and Canada.

"Distribution" is limited to department stores and specialty chains, (Discovery
Channel,  Learning Express, Nordstroms and Macy's).  Mass market is excluded as
well as FAO Schwartz and JC  Penney.

"Advance Royalty" is $5,000 due upon contract execution.

"Earned Royalty" is 8% for Products shipped from a location inside the
Territory and 10% for  Products shipped FOB rate.

"Guaranteed Royalty" is $20,000.

"Initial Sale Date" is February 1, 1999.

"Term" of this agreement is from the Effective Date until January 31, 2001.

"Renewal": Option to renew for an additional two year period provided Licensee
has generated in  excess of $500,000 in royalties.

All Products and Advertising Materials will bear this notice:

In complete form:
Kanga Roddy is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Kanga Roddy
and all related  characters and indicia are trademarks of American Champion
Media, Inc. Copyright 1998 American Champion  Media, Inc.  1694 The Alameda,
Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95126, U. S. A.  All Rights Reserved. Or in short form
if space is limited:   Copyright 1998 American Champion Media

The parties have agreed to the terms of this Merchandise License Agreement
contained above and on  the following pages.

American Champion Media, Inc.               Timeless Toys

By:     /s/ Anthony K. Chan                 By:     /s/ Harold A. Nizamian
             (signature)                                   (signature)

            Anthony K. Chan                             Harold A. Nizamian
                (name)                                        (name)

        Chief Executive Officer                           President & CEO
                (title)                                       (title)

          December 23, 1998                              December 31, 1998
                (date)                                         (date)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40028 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus C. W. FIELDS, also known as William T. Neilley, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CV-260

- - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * C.W. Fields appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that the district court erred when it sua sponte determined that he was procedurally barred from arguing that the sentencing court was required to give him notice of an upward departure. Because the court's failure to give notice of intent to upwardly depart is not an error of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude, see United States v. Faubion , 19 F.3dNo. 95-40028 -2- 226, 233 (5th Cir. 1994), and the issue could have been raised on direct appeal, it may not be considered on collateral review. United States v. Capua , 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir. 1981).
AFFIRMED.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 125 

To provide for a temporary increase in the number of Iraqi and Afghan 

translators in the United States Armed Forces who may be provided 

status as special immigrants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. FORTENBERRY (for himself and Mr. BERMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a temporary increase in the number of Iraqi 

and Afghan translators in the United States Armed 

Forces who may be provided status as special immigrants. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN NUMBER OF IRAQI 

4 AND AFGHAN TRANSLATORS IN THE UNITED 

5 STATES ARMED FORCES WHO MAY BE PRO6 VIDED STATUS AS SPECIAL IMMIGRANTS. 

7 Section 1059(c)(1) of the National Defense Author8 ization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 125 IH

1 is amended by inserting before the period at the end the 

2 following: ‘‘(or 300 in the case of each of fiscal years 2007, 

3 2008, and 2009)’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
#### Bert Wellman v. The Board of Metropolitan Police of the City of Detroit.

[See 84 Mich. 558.]

*Public officers*— Dismissal *of patrolman*— Jurisdiction.

1. If the question of petitioner’s fitness for, the office of patrolman-involved. an inquiry as to his guilt of innocence of a criminal offense, to the extent necessary to determine that question,, respondent had a right to enter upon the trial of the question of his guilt.

2. While the punishment would be limited to a dismissal from the-service, and the determination would not be binding in any other proceeding, the petitioner cannot shield himself from dismissal by averring that the charges against him are too serious for respondent to consider.

*Certiorari*to review proceedings resulting in the dismissal of petitioner as patrolman.

Argued April 13, 1892.

Writ quashed April 22, 1892.

The facts are stated in. the opinion.

*John Miner,*for petitioner.

*Charles M. Swift (Edwin F. Conely,*of counsel), for respondent.

Montgomery, J.

This is *certiorari*to the respondent, to bring before us the action taken .by the board in dismissing the relator from the police force. Charges were brought against the plaintiff of conduct immoral, and unbecoming an officer, and the action of the board, was reviewed by this Court by *mandamus,*and is reported in 84 Mich. 558. The dismissal was in that case set aside; but it was further stated that the determination would not prevent further proceedings, under proper *428charges and specifications. Following upon this opinion further charges were preferred against the plaintiff, a hearing was had, and he was found guilty thereof, and •dismissed from the service.

The principal ground relied on is that the offenses of which he was convicted were beyond the jurisdiction of the board, constituting, as they did, charges of felonies; •and it is said that it does not lie with the board to adjudge him guilty of a felony simply because he is a member of the police force, and subject in such capacity to its jurisdiction.

We cannot assent to this view. If the question of the plaintiff's, fitness for the office of patrolman involved an inquiry as to whether he was or was not guilty of a criminal offense, to the extent that is necessary to determine the question of fitness, the board had the right to enter upon the trial of the question of his guilt. Of course, the punishment could not go beyond a dismissal from the service, nor would the determination of the board be binding in any other proceeding; but we are not prepared to hold that the plaintiff could shield himself from dismissal by averring that the charges against him were too serious for the board to consider. If this were so, the more unfit the •officer the less subject to discipline by the board would he be. Such could not have been the legislative intent in conferring the power which was conferred upon the board.

The board having acquired jurisdiction, and having acted lawfully, it is not within the power of this Court to review the decision reached upon the merits.

The writ of *certiorari*will be quashed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
#### Theresa EVANS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D10-4917.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 23, 2010.

Scott Timothy Smith, Brooksville, for Appellant.

Joyce Miller, Department of Children and Families, Wildwood, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Durando v. Palm Beach County,*719 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

BENTON, C.J., KAHN, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-21040

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALD TYRONE HOLLINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-3083

USDC No. H-00-CR-242-1

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

February 19, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Tyrone Hollins, # 88295-079, requests a certificate

of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Hollins was convicted on his guilty

pleas to charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and

carjacking and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 188 months’

imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
2

We examine the basis of our jurisdiction on our own motion.

Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The time limit

for a notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to the exercise

of appellate jurisdiction, and the lack of a timely notice mandates

dismissal of the appeal. United States v. Garcia-Machado, 845 F.2d

492, 493 (5th Cir. 1988). Hollins had sixty days from the June 18,

2002, entry of the district court’s order, that is, until Monday,

August 19, 2002, to file a timely notice of appeal. FED. R. APP. P.

4(a)(1)(B); United States v. De Los Reyes, 842 F.2d 755, 757 (5th

Cir. 1988). Hollins’ notice of appeal, dated September 5, 2002,

was untimely. 

Rule 4(a)(5), FED. R. APP. P., allows the district court to

grant an additional thirty days in which to file a notice of appeal

upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Hollins’ notice

of appeal, which was filed within this 30-day period sufficed as a

motion for a finding on excusable neglect or good cause. United

States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000); United States

v. Golding, 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, the COA motion is held in abeyance and the case

is REMANDED to the district court for a finding under FED. R. APP. P.

4(a)(5). Golding, 739 F.2d at 184. Upon making the finding, the

district court shall promptly return the case to this court for

dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate.

REMANDED.