alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 30535 

Dated: May 29, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E9–15111 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–22] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–22 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


EN26JN09.216</GPH>
30536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JN09.210</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 30537 


EN26JN09.211</GPH>
30538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JN09.212</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 30539 

Dated: May 29, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E9–15112 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–16] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–16 

with attached transmittal, and policy 

justification. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


EN26JN09.213</GPH>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00972-CR

Style: Florencio Leal v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: July 13, 2015

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: April 15, 2015

Number of extensions granted: 2 Current Due Date: July 14, 2015

Date Requested: August 13, 2015

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: August 13, 2015.

 No further extensions of time will be granted.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

On June 11, 2015, the Clerk of this Court granted appellant’s second extension and

warned counsel that no further extensions would be granted. Because appellant’s 

motion states that more time is needed because the reporter’s record is missing critical

video exhibits, and that he is seeking access to them, his motion is granted, but

counsel is warned that no further extensions will be granted. Accordingly, if 

appellant’s brief is not filed by August 13, 2015, the Court will abate this appeal for a 

hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

  

Date: July 21, 2015
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 4th day of June,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

TOTAL COMMITMENT LLC, TOTAL

COMMITMENT CONSTRUCTION,

LLC AND TOTAL COMMITMENT IN

MINISTRIES,

Appellants,

v.

MJJS CORPORATION Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-12-00692-CV (Tr.Ct.No. CL-11-3519-H)

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

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Each party shall bear their own costs

relating to this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

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

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 21st day of July, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK

FILE COPY
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00871-CV

Style: Playa Vista LP, Morgan-Multi Family LLC, and Scott Morgan

v. Lakeside Re, LP, GSRE, Inc., and Avi Ron

Date motion filed*: July 15, 2015

Type of motion: Agreed Motion to Dismiss

Party filing motion: Appellants

Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

On May 15, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that this appeal was 

stayed pursuant to the Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed by the appellees on May 14, 

2015, and that the Court would take no further action until the parties move to reinstate 

after the bankruptcy has concluded. Accordingly, although it is agreed, the appellants’ 

motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to refiling after a motion to reinstate

this appeal has been filed attaching the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the stay or 

terminating the bankruptcy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3(a).

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Laura Carter Higley

 

Date: July 21, 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manolo Abreu, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 717]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 24, 2003 *(People v Abreu,*303 AD2d 685 [2003]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered January 26, 2000.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P, Crane, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 

21(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

Saitta 

Gibbons Pickering 

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

May 28, 2013

t0520 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2013

146804

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Pl aintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146804

COA: 306186

Wayne CC: 11

- 001370

- FH

ROBERT JAY HOWELL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2013

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4314

_____________________________

ROBERT DALE PURIFOY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Gary L. Bergosh, Judge.

July 11, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Robert Dale Purifoy, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF M.H., 

A CHILD.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00191-CV

Appeal from

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2014DCM1307)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant=s motion to dismiss and concludes the 

motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of 

this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order that because Appellant is 

indigent, no order regarding costs is made. We further order that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
'\ 1

to

o

CD

CO

N

H

-J

:0

'>

*T

H

0

CD

C4

'0>

1©

NO. 2009-CR-0764

THE STATE OF TEXAS

VS.

FLANZO LAFONTE TOWNES

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

226TM JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER ON MOTION FOR

POST-CONVICTION FORENSIC DNA TESTING

On this the day of AUG 21201f , 20 _, the Court

considered the Defendant's Motion for Forensic DNA Testing

pursuant to Art. 64.01 (a) on the above-referenced cause and

orders that the Motion be and is hereby:

(GRANTED /) DENIED)

226cn Judicial District Court

Bexar County, Texas
* 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
CARLOS EDUARDO ZARCENO; IRIS JEANNETTE ZARCENO, AKA Iris Janet Hernandez de Zarceno; ANDREA SOFIA ZARCENO HERNANDEZ, aka Andrea Zarceno Hernandez, Petitioners,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 09-74002 Agency Nos. A094-999-228 A094-999-229 A094-999-230
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 6, 2011 ** Seattle, Washington 

# FILED
JUN 10 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS*** The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, Ch ief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 2 Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ, Chief District Judge. *** Petitioner Eduardo Zarceno appeals from the BIA’s denial of his asylum petition. Zarceno alleges persecution by the Salvadoran “Mara 18” gang. He alleges that he was targeted by the gang b ecause he is a lawyer and he refused to represent members of the gang in criminal matters. We review a denial of asylum by the BIA for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). This means that “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), we must affirm. Even if we assume that lawyers who refuse to represent gang members are a particular social group as contemplated by the asylum laws, and even if we assume that Mara 18 was a state actor or could not be controlled by state authorities, there was sufficient evidence for the BIA to c onclude that Zarceno was not persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group. At his asylum hearing, Zarceno testified that he was approached by the gang for money. When asked by the government’s lawyer why he was targ eted, Zarceno responded, “It was not for political motivations, it was for monetary motivation. They thought because I’m a3 lawyer that I have money.” This was sufficient for the BIA to conclude that Zarceno was not persecuted on account of a protected ground. See INS v. EliasZacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1992). For similar reasons, this was sufficient for the BIA to deny Zarceno’s applica tion for withholding of removal. As Zarceno provides no argument on appeal why the BIA’s denial of protection under CAT was in err, we do not address his CAT claim. See MartinezSerrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). PETITION DENIED.
No. 20-03 For Immediate Release

 March 2020 

Information on Federal Income Tax and Railroad Retirement Benefits Available Online 

With tax time rapidly approaching, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) wants to remind its 

customers that the best source of information pertaining to Federal income tax and railroad retirement 

benefits is the agency’s website, RRB.gov. 

Those visiting RRB.gov can access a variety of income tax-related publications, news releases, and 

downloadable forms by clicking on Benefits in the main menu, and then selecting Income Tax. Booklets 

available online include The Taxation of Railroad Retirement Act Annuities, which details how Railroad 

Retirement Act component payments are taxed, and which payments are not, among other topics, and Tax 

Withholding and Railroad Retirement Payments, which explains the effect of tax withholding on railroad 

retirement payments. 

RRB.gov also contains forms explaining the RRB-issued income tax statements which list payments 

made during the tax year. In addition, it allows customers to request duplicates of those statements via 

myRRB, the website’s portal to its online customer services. (Duplicate tax statements can also be 

requested by using the automated menu on the RRB’s toll-free number, 877-772-5772.) 

Customers should remember that for information about RRB-issued income tax statements or tax 

withholding from their benefits, they can visit RRB.gov as mentioned previously, or contact an RRB field 

office. However, for further Federal income tax information, including how to figure taxable payments 

and/or questions about amounts to enter on income tax returns, customers should contact a local Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) office or an individual's tax preparer. Information is also available by visiting the 

IRS website at IRS.gov. 

# # # 

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

RRB News

844 North Rush Street Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275 

www.rrb.gov 

877-772-5772 general information 

Public Affairs 

312-751-4777 

opa@rrb.gov media inquiries
#### Brighton Manuf’g Co. *v.*Fire Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania.

*(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.*

July 25, 1887.)

At Law. Suit to recover on a fire insurance policy.

Action by the Brighton Manufacturing Company against the Pire Insurance Company of the state of Pennsylvania on a policy of insurance.

*F. W. Russell,*for plaintiff.

*Gary, Cody & Gary*and *Fred’k TJllman,*for defendant.

Blodgett, J.

The facts in this case are the same as in the preceding case; and the only defense.set up is the increase of risk by the stoppage of manufacturing. I have already passed upon this defense, and the finding will therefore be for the plaintiff
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of Stage II Apparel Corp. and subsidiaries and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            992
<SECURITIES>                                      388
<RECEIVABLES>                                     103 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                     2,855 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                4,004 
<PP&E>                                             86 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  6,800 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,769 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                           50 
<OTHER-SE>                                      7,205 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    6,800 
<SALES>                                         9,867 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,466 
<CGS>                                           7,859 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,250 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  561 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                892 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,237)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       81 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,318)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,318)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)
                                               


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(q)

                             AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
                       PEDIATRIC SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.
                    NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

     Pediatric Services of America, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the
"Corporation"), has previously established the Pediatric Services of America,
Inc. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of a
select group employees and their beneficiaries.

      In accordance with Section 7.1 of the Plan and pursuant to resolutions
adopted by the Board of Directors, Section 6.1 of the Plan is hereby amended,
effective June 1, 2001, to read in its entirety as follows:

         "6.1 Form of Benefits. The Company shall pay benefits in the form
associated with the Type of Benefit elected by the Participant, and, to the
extent a Type of Benefit may be distributed in various forms, the Company shall
pay benefits in the form elected by the Participant. The forms of benefits
associated with the Types of Benefits are the following:

              (A) Retirement Benefit, Disability Benefit, and Death Benefit
shall be paid in (i) one lump sum; (ii) 5 yearly installments; (iii) 10 yearly
installments; or (iv) 15 yearly installments. Yearly installments shall be as
nearly equal as practicable.

              (B) Termination of Service Benefit, with respect to
termination for reasons other than Retirement, Disability or Death, shall be
paid in one lump sum; provided that any benefit under the plan that has accrued
before the effective date of this amendment, including earnings thereon, if any
(referred to as a "Pre-2001 Benefit"), will not be subject to the terms of this
subsection 6.1(B). As a matter of administrative convenience, any participant
who terminates his or her employment and receives a lump sum distribution
pursuant to this subsection 6.1(B) may request and, subject to approval by the
Company, receive his or her Pre-2001 Benefit in one lump sum concurrently with
the remainder of his or her account;

              (C) In-Service Benefit shall be paid in 4 equal yearly
installments;

              (D) Unplanned In-Service Benefits shall be paid in one lump sum;
and

              (E) Financial Hardship Benefit shall be paid in one lump sum."

      Executed at Norcross, Georgia on May 25, 2001.

                                         PEDIATRIC SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.



                                         By:  /s/ Joseph D. Sansone
                                              --------------------------------
                                                  Joseph D. Sansone, President
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 Quarterly Report of Intcomex, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Russell A. Olson, Chief Financial Officer of Intcomex, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: May 15, 2007.



/s/ Russell A. OlsonRussell A. OlsonChief Financial Officer


The certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, or as a separate disclosure documents of we or the certifying officers.
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-F ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 13th day of May, 2005.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-F
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-F and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-F and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.