alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John R. MILLS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent.

No. 2006-3308.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2007.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Department of Transportation moves without opposition to lift the stay of proceedings and remand John R. Mills’ petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Mills filed an appeal alleging that the Department had improperly charged him leave for the performance of military reserve duty on non-workdays in violation of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 (2000). The Board held that Mills had failed to meet his burden of establishing a violation of USERRA and dismissed his complaint without granting Mills a hearing. Mills appealed.

On March 7, 2007, we issued our decision in *Kirkendall v. Army,*479 F.3d 830 (Fed.Cir.2007) (en banc), *cert. denied*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 375, 169 L.Ed.2d 260 (2007). *Kirkendall*held, inter alia, that USERRA requires that “any veteran who requests a hearing shall receive one.” *Id.*at 844. Because Mills was denied a hearing, we remand for further proceedings in light of *Kirkendall.*On remand, the Board may also consider, inter alia, our recent decisions in *Hernandez v. Department of the Air Force,*498 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.2007) and *Pucilowski v. Department of Justice,*498 F.3d 1341 (Fed.Cir.2007).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear them own costs.
#### Ismael Mahdi OMAR, also known as Ismael Omar, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-60098

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2012.

Ismael Mahdi Omar, Oakdale, LA, pro se.

Ann M. Welhaf, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ismael Mahdi Omar, a native and citizen of Djibouti, Africa, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

Omar makes only conclusional arguments that his removal was barred by the principle of res judicata and that he was prejudiced during his removal proceedings because documentary evidence he submitted in support of his claims was either not submitted to the IJ or not considered by the IJ. Omar does not address the BIA’s reasons for rejecting his res judicata argument or its finding that he had a full and fair opportunity to present his claims and that the immigration proceedings were not unfair. In addition, he fails to address the BIA’s findings with respect to his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under CAT.

Omar’s petitions for review do not provide “even the slightest identification of any error” in the BIA’s legal analyses or the application of the analyses to his claims. *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); *Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Issues not raised and conclusional and inadequately briefed arguments are waived. *Chambers v. Mukasey,*520 F.3d 445, 448 n. 1 (5th Cir.2008); *Soadjede,*324 F.3d at 833; *Rodriguez v. INS,*9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, Omar’s petitions for review are DENIED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 10.1


VALENCE TECHNOLOGY, INC.



November 4, 2002


Mr. Carl E. Berg
Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC
10050 Bandley Dr.
Cupertino, CA  95014

Re:  Waiver of Conditions of Equity Line of Credit

Dear Mr. Berg:

     Valence Technology, Inc. (the "Company") and Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC
entered into a financing commitment on March 20, 2002. The terms of the
commitment were provided in an Equity Line of Credit Term Sheet (the "Equity
Line"). This letter is to formally document our understanding that each of the
"Conditions to Funding" as outlined in the Equity Line, except for item (i)
which states that there has been no change in the CEO of the Company, are hereby
waived for the Company's third and fourth fiscal quarters of its fiscal year
2003.

     Kindly indicate your acceptance of the waivers described above by signing
and returning the enclosed copy of this letter.

                                                   Sincerely,

                                                   VALENCE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                                                   /S/ KEVIN W.MISCHNICK
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Kevin W. Mischnick
                                                   VP of Finance

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

BERG & BERG ENTERPRISES, LLC

/S/ CARL E. BERG
-------------------------------
Carl E. Berg, Managing Member
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7242
LAWRENCE M. BREAKLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1786) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence M. Breakley, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Breakley v. Hinkle , No. CA-95-1786 (E.D. Va. July 31, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 7, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135001 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135001 

 COA: 279562 

Kalamazoo CC: 06-002473-FH 

RANDOLPH CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 29, 2007 

order 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. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0430 

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. 

May 7, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 275 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 275

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 22) 
proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2003

Mr. Taylor of Mississippi submitted the following resolution; which was 
                   referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 22) 
proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
                                States.

    Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House 
resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union for consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 22) 
proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States. General debate shall be confined to the joint resolution and 
shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
After general debate the joint resolution shall be considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the joint resolution for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the joint resolution to the House with such amendments 
as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
    Sec. 2. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has 
come to no resolution on the joint resolution, then on the next 
legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily 
order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the joint 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.3



|                       |  |                                                                                                                                                            
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|[GRAPHIC APPEARS HERE] |  | Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
Petroleum Consultants 4100, 400 - 3rd Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4H2 (403) 266-9500 Fax (403) 262-1855



LETTER OF CONSENT



CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



To Whom It May Concern:



As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 relating
to the stock incentive plans of the Wiser Oil Company (the Company), (Nos. 33-44171, 33-62441, 33-44172, 333-22525 and 333-15083), of certain data from our report entitled The Wiser Oil Company Canada Ltd. Reserves Appraisal and
Economic Evaluastion effective January 1, 2004 with respect to the oil and gas reserves of the Company, the future net revenues therefrom and present values attributable to these reserves included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and to all
references to our firm included in this Annual Report.



Yours very truly,GILBERT LAUSTSEN JUNG ASSOCIATES
LTD.ORIGINALLY SIGNED BYWayne W. Chow, P. Eng.Vice-President




Dated: March 29, 2004

Calgary, AB

CANADA
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated March 27, 1997 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Greenbriar Corporation on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1996. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
Greenbriar Corporation on Form S-3 (File No. 33-64840) and Form S-8 (File 
No. 33-65856).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
----------------------
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 27, 1997
exv10w26






Exhibit 10.26




FIRST AMENDMENT TO




EMPLOYMENT OFFER LETTER




     
This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Offer Letter (the “Offer Letter”), dated
as of June 3, 2008, between Jones Soda Co., a Washington corporation (“Employer”), and Stephen C.
Jones (“Employee”) is entered into on December 29, 2008.



     WHEREAS, Employer and Employee wish to document an amendment to the Offer Letter;



     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency
and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, Employer and Employee hereby agree that, effective January 1, 2009, the Offer Letter shall be amended as follows:




     The last paragraph of the Section entitled “Severance and Change in Control Benefits” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:





The severance and change of control payments described above are intended to be exempt from
the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section
409A”) to the maximum extent possible, whether pursuant to the short-term deferral
exception described in Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-1(b)(4), the involuntary
separation pay plan exception described in Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-1(b)(9)(iii),
or otherwise. To the extent Code Section 409A is applicable to such payments and benefits,
the parties intend that this letter (and such payments) shall comply with the deferral,
payout and other limitations and restrictions imposed under Section 409A and the
regulations, rulings and other guidance issued thereunder. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this letter to the contrary, this letter shall be interpreted, operated and
administered in a manner consistent with such intentions. Without limiting the generality
of the foregoing, and notwithstanding any other provision of this letter to the contrary,
with respect to any payments and benefits under this letter to which Section 409A applies,
all references in this letter to termination of your employment are intended to mean your
“separation from service,” within the meaning of Section 409A(a)(2)(A)(i). In addition, if
you are a “specified employee,” within the meaning of Code Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i), when
you separate from service, within the meaning of Section 409A(a)(2)(A)(i), then to the
extent necessary to avoid subjecting you to the imposition of any additional tax under
Section 409A, amounts that would otherwise be payable under this letter during the
six-month period immediately following your separation from service shall not be paid to
you during such period, but shall instead be accumulated and paid to you (or, in the event
of your death, to your estate) in a lump sum on the first business day following the
earlier of (a) the date that is six months after your separation from service or (b) your
death.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this Amendment on the date set forth
above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	JONES SODA CO.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Stephen C. Jones
 


	 	By 
	 	/s/ Michael R. O’Brien
 

	 	 
	Stephen C. Jones
	 	 	 	Its
	 	CFO
	 	 







2
|    |                                                                                                                                                       |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of HRG Group, Inc. for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |
| /s/ OMAR M. ASALI                     |   |
| Omar M. Asali                         |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | (i)    | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|   | (ii)   | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.                                 |

| Dated: February 2, 2011 |                                   |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                    | /s/ Ross A. Goolsby                    |
|                    | Ross A. GoolsbyChief Financial Officer |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

         Re: Nuveen Investments, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report") of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the "Company") and pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

                  (i)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of
         section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                  (ii)     the information contained in the Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of the Company.

Dated as of this 13th day of November 2003.

                                            /s/ Margaret E. Wilson
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Margaret E. Wilson
                                            Senior Vice President, Finance
                                            (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                            Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification
accompanies the Report and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of
the Report.
II 

Calendar No. 81 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 501 

[Report No. 114–41] 

To make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights settlement in the 

State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

Mr. UDALL (for himself and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

MAY 11, 2015 

Reported by Mr. BARRASSO, without amendment 

A BILL 

To make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights 

settlement in the State of New Mexico, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Mexico Navajo 

5 Water Settlement Technical Corrections Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 501 RS

1 SEC. 2. NAVAJO WATER SETTLEMENT. 

2 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 10302 of the Omnibus 

3 Public Land Management Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 407 

4 note; Public Law 111–11) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Arrellano’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘Arellano’’; and 

7 (2) in paragraph (27), by striking ‘‘75–185’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘75–184’’. 

9 (b) DELIVERY AND USE OF NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER

10 SUPPLY PROJECT WATER.—Section 10603(c)(2)(A) of 

11 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub12 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1385) is amended— 

13 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘Article III(c)’’ 

14 and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’; and 

15 (2) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ‘‘Article III(c)’’ 

16 and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’. 

17 (c) PROJECT CONTRACTS.—Section 10604(f)(1) of 

18 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub19 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1391) is amended by inserting 

20 ‘‘Project’’ before ‘‘water’’. 

21 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

22 10609 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

23 2009 (Public Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1395) is amended— 

24 (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), 

25 by striking ‘‘construction or rehabilitation’’ each 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 501 RS

1 place it appears and inserting ‘‘planning, design, 

2 construction, rehabilitation,’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ‘‘2 percent’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘4 percent’’; and 

5 (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ‘‘4 percent’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘2 percent’’. 

7 (e) AGREEMENT.—Section 10701(e) of the Omnibus 

8 Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111– 

9 11; 123 Stat. 1400) is amended in paragraphs (2)(A), 

10 (2)(B), and (3)(A) by striking ‘‘and Contract’’ each place 

11 it appears. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 81 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 501 

[Report No. 114–41] 

A BILL 

To make technical corrections to the Navajo water 

and for other purposes. rights settlement in the State of New Mexico, 

MAY 11, 2015 

Reported without amendment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS