alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26456-26457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12821]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6648]


Review of Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation for Kahane 
Chai, Also Known as KACH, and Other Aliases

    Pursuant to section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189 (a)(4)(C)), the Department of State is 
undertaking a review of the designation of the above-

[[Page 26457]]

named group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Representatives and 
members of the above-named group may provide the Department of State 
with a written statement or other documentary materials for 
consideration as part of the review process and inclusion in the 
administrative record. Such materials must be submitted by June 12, 
2009 to: The Coordinator for Counterterrorism, United States Department 
of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 13, 2009.
Ronald L. Schlicher,
Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-12821 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
#### In the Matter of Michael Hoffler, Appellant, v Robert M. Jacon, as Judge of the County Court of Rensselaer County, et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 16, 2010;

decided October 21, 2010

*873Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 1, 2010 dismissal order denied *[see*15 NY3d 768 (2010)]. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
Jesus Maria Alvarez & Associates; Ana Lisa Garza, s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 8, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00109

- CV

Sergio ALANIZ , SR., et al., Appellants

v.

JESUS MARIA ALVAREZ & ASSOCIATES ; Ana Lisa Garza, Intervenor, Appellee s

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr Count y, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 00

- 328 Honorable J. Manuel Banales, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant s seek to appeal the January 13, 2014 o rder d enying their m otion to recuse the trial judge , the Honorable Frederico J. Hinojosa, retired Justice of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals

. I t appears from the clerk ’ s record that the o rder i s interlocutory because the underlying proceeding out of which the order arises remains pending and no severance order appears in the

record. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) ( appellate courts only have jurisdic tion to review final j udgment s that dispose of all parties and causes of action and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute )

. Rule 18a(j) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure expressly states that an order denying a motion to recuse may only b e reviewed on appeal from the final judgment. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 18a(j)(1)(A).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant s show cause in writing within fifteen days of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The briefing schedule is suspended pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Ju stice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of April, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* 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. 00-60161

Summary Calendar

 

DAVE BARHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MISSISSIPPI APPRAISAL BOARD, and its Board Members in their

individual as well as official capacity; JAMES R. LAUGHLIN, JR.,

District 1, Corinth, Mississippi; J. FILO COATS, District 2,

Grenada, Mississippi; MARK S. BOUNDS, District 3, Madison,

Mississippi; ROBERT LACEY CROOK, II, District 4, Jackson, 

Mississippi; JILL R. WALTERS, District 5, Wiggins, Mississippi;

ROBERT E. PRAYTOR, Ex Officio Administrator; WILLIAM R. MOON,

Deputy Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:99-CV-313-D-A

- - - - - - - - - -

August 9, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dave Barham appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that

the district court erred in holding that he failed to state a

claim on which relief could be granted and that the Attorney

General was not authorized to represent the defendants.
No. 00-60161 

-2-

1Barham’s claim that the defendants conceded the factual

basis for his suit is untrue and irrelevant given the procedural

posture of the case. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss,

alleging that even if the facts alleged were true, Barham stated

no claim on which relief could be granted. This is standard

procedure under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record, we agree

that Barham failed to state a claim. He alleged only that the

defendants “have set a hearing and are going to fine and/or jail”

him. Barham articulated no factual basis as to why such a

proceeding, assuming it would take place, would violate any of

the many constitutional rights he cites. Nor does he explain why

the $2 million damage award he seeks would remedy not-yetinflicted harms.1

We also reject Barham’s argument that the Mississippi

Attorney General could not represent the Board and its members. 

Barham cites no authority for the proposition that a statutory

provision permissively allowing the Board to employ counsel

negates the Attorney General’s authority under Mississippi law to

defend suits brought against state boards and the members and

employees of those bodies. See MISS. CODE ANN. § 7-5-1. We do not

consider Barham’s argument regarding the appearance of private

counsel on behalf of some defendants because it is raised for the

first time on appeal.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6603

ERIC MCDONALD EVANS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:08-cv-00307-MHL)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 2, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric McDonald Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric McDonald Evans seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order ∗ dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Evans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

∗ The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
EXHIBIT 10.5


 


ORLEANS HOMEBUILDERS, INC.


 


AMENDMENT TO NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION


 


This Amendment
to Non-Qualified Stock Option (this “Amendment”) is
made as of this 6th day of December, 2007.


 


WHEREAS, on February 27,
2007, Orleans Homebuilders, Inc. (the “Company”)
granted to Garry P. Herdler (the “Optionee”) an
option to acquire 240,000 shares of the Company’s common stock with an exercise
price of $15.60 per share pursuant to the Orleans Homebuilders, Inc. 2004
Omnibus Stock Inventive Plan, as amended and restated (the “Plan”) and a Non-Qualified Stock Option issued pursuant to
the plan dated February 27, 2007 (the “Option”);


 


WHEREAS, the
Plan permits the Committee to amend any grant document issued pursuant to the
Plan, including the Option, without the recipient’s consent is such amendment
is favorable to the recipient; and


 


WHEREAS, the
Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors determined that the
Option’s “Option Price” (as defined in the Plan) should be modified to the
closing price of the Company’s common stock on the American Stock Exchange on December 6,
2007 and to provide for accelerated vesting in the event of the death or “Disability”
of Mr. Herdler while he is employed with the Company.


 


NOW, THEREORE,
the Option is modified as follows:


 


1.             The Option Price
set forth in the Option shall be $4.65 per share, the closing price of the
Company’s Common Stock on the American Stock Exchange on December 6, 2007,
the date the Compensation Committee approved the terms set forth in this Amendment.


 


2.             Exhibit A to
the Option is amended and restated in its entirety to read as set forth in
Attachment 1.


 


Except as
specifically set forth above, no amendments to the Option are made. This Amendment and the Option are subject in
all regards to the terms, conditions and limitations set forth in the Plan.


 


[SIGNATURES
ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company has executed this Amendment as of December 6, 2007.


 


	
   

  	
  ORLEANS HOMEBUILDERS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  BENJAMIN D. GOLDMAN

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Benjamin D.
  Goldman, Vice Chairman

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ACKNOWLEDGED:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  GARRY P. HERDLER

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Garry P. Herdler

  
	
   

  	
  Optionee
EXHIBIT
        32a: Rule 13a - 14(b) Certification
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Earthworks Entertainment,
        Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that:
  1.  The
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended March
        31,
        2006 (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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 
 
 MAY
                  12, 2006
              /s/ PETER KEEFEPeter
                  KeefePresident,
                  Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        34,114,217
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   8,533,796
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              42,648,013
<CASH>                                         804,392
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         838,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,218,281
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             21,953,774
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          2,942,155
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         3,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,135,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,218,281
<PREMIUMS>                                   1,599,261
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            545,466
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              65,328
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                   1,918,825
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    452,233
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           196,325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (357,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (180,910)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (176,418)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (176,418)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              19,763,111
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                          1,918,825
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               3,300
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               761,127
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                             20,917,509
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 205 (Monday, October 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55086-55087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25478]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Ex Parte No. 552 (Sub-No. 13)]


Railroad Revenue Adequacy--2008 Determination

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: On October 26, 2009, the Board served a decision announcing 
the 2008 revenue adequacy determinations for the Nation's Class I 
railroads. One carrier, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, is found to 
be revenue adequate.

DATES: Effective Date: This decision is effective on October 26, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Paul Aguiar, (202) 245-0323. 
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is required to make an annual

[[Page 55087]]

determination of railroad revenue adequacy. A railroad is considered 
revenue adequate under 49 U.S.C. 10704(a) if it achieves a rate of 
return on net investment (ROI) equal to at least the current cost of 
capital for the railroad industry. For 2008, the railroad industry's 
cost of capital was determined to be 11.75%. See Railroad Cost of 
Capital--2008, STB Ex Parte No. 558 (Sub-No. 12) (STB served Sept. 25, 
2009). This revenue adequacy figure was compared with ROI data from 
each Class I railroad, and one carrier was found to be revenue adequate 
for 2008.
    The Board's decision in this proceeding is posted on the Board's 
Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov under ``E-Library,'' and ``Decisions 
& Notices.''
    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action in this 
proceeding will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The purpose and effect of the action is 
merely to update the annual railroad industry revenue adequacy finding. 
No new reporting or other regulatory requirements are imposed, directly 
or indirectly, on small entities.

    Decided: October 16, 2009.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9-25478 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
**Appendix 2: U.S. Department of the Interior Work-At- Home Telework Safety Checklist Employee Certification**

The following checklist is designed to assess the overall safety of the alternative workplace. Each telework employee should read and complete this self-certification safety checklist. Upon completion, the checklist should be signed and dated by the participating employee and returned to his/her immediate supervisor. Both the supervisor and employee should retain a copy of this certification for their records.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF

THE
TRUSTEE*

OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2017
and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joshua R. Peterson, Vice President and Senior Trust Officer of Compass Bank, on behalf of Compass Bank, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty
Trust (the Trust),* not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (as explained in Note 1 to the Trusts financial statements
contained in the Report, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, Financial Statements of Royalty Trusts, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally
accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THESAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:

/s/ Joshua R. PetersonName:

Joshua R. PetersonTitle:

Vice President and Senior Trust OfficerDate:

November 9, 2017




|* | The Trust has no executive officers.
|- | ------------------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2011 

0321 

Order 

 

March 29, 2011 

142216 

SAMI ABU FARHA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 142216 

 COA: 288754 

Wayne CC: 04-421307-CH 

BEN NAKASH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 31, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NWCG Fire Training and Incident Qualifications

Employee Name:

IFPM Position: Wildland Fire Operations Specialist (Low Complexity)

NWCG Incident Management Qualifications

Primary Core Requirement: Single Resource Boss, Crew (CRWB) OR Engine (ENGB)

OR Helicopter (HMGB)

Secondary Core Requirement: Incident Commander, Type 4 (ICT4)

The purpose of this form is to help identify required and developmental training for the 

NWCG Incident Management Qualification Standards for this position. The required 

training includes the IFPM “Additional Required Training” and the required training for 

the Incident Command Positions (ICS) and/or the Wildland Fire Positions based on the 

2009 Wildland Fire Qualification System Guide (PMS 310-1). Employees should refer 

to individual agency requirements.

Course 

Number

Course Name Training 

Needed

Training 

Completed

Estimated 

Cost

Required Training

S-200 Initial Attack Incident Commander

S-230 Crew Boss (Single Resource)

S-290 Intermediate Wildland Fire Behavior

A-110 Aviation Transportation of Hazardous 

Materials

S-372 Helicopter Manager

Suggested Developmental Training

L-280 Followership to Leadership

L-380 Fireline Leadership

S-215 Fire Operations in the Wiland/Urban 

Interface 

S-231 Engine Boss (Single Resource)

S-234 Ignition Operations

S-260 Interagency Incident Business 

Management

S-270 Basic Air Operations

S-390 Introduction to Wildland Fire 

Behavior Calculations

S-491 Intermediate National Fire Danger 

Rating System

ICS-200 Basic ICS: ICS for Single Resources 

and Initial Action Incidents
**EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Mark L. Weinstein, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc.        Dated: May 15, 2007 /s/ Mark L. Weinstein*   Mark L. Weinstein,   President and Chief Executive Officer