alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"FMC JUNE 2023 ACTIVITY REPORT","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7LPkqyv3Zs\"><a href=\"\/fmc-june-2023-activity-report\/\">FMC JUNE 2023 ACTIVITY REPORT<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/fmc-june-2023-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=7LPkqyv3Zs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC JUNE 2023 ACTIVITY REPORT” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"7LPkqyv3Zs\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Ramon MONDRAGON-RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Ramon Mondragon Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73854.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Patricia G. Gittelson, Esquire, Law Offices of Patricia G. Gittelson, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner.

Julie M. Iversen, Esquire, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, James A. Hurley, Esquire, Joanne E. Johnson, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District *307Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Mondragon-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cere-zo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Because Mondragon-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice at his prior proceedings, he may not collaterally attack his 2000 deportation order. See *Ramirez-Juarez v. INS,*633 F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (“This court has consistently held that an alien cannot collaterally attack an earlier exclusion or deportation at a subsequent deportation hearing, in the absence of a gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceedings.”); *Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft,*271 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th Cir.2001) (deportation order under a given rule of law may withstand subsequent judicial change in that rule).

The agency did not err in determining Mondragon-Rodriguez was ineligible for cancellation of removal where his 2000 deportation order terminated his status as a lawful permanent resident. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(20), 1229b(a)(l).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Mondragon-Rodriguez’s request for voluntary departure. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); *Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245,1255 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 10.32**

**Amendment No. 1 to the**

**OMNOVA SOLUTIONS INC.**

**Second Amended and Restated**

**1999Equity and Performance Incentive Plan**

*This Amendment No. 1 to the OMNOVA Solutions Inc. Second Amended and Restated 1999 Equity and PerformanceIncentive Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. at a duly held meeting of the Board of Directors on March 19, 2008.*

WHEREAS, the shareholders of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. approved the OMNOVA Solutions Inc. Second Amended and Restated 1999 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) on March 22, 2007; 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors now desires to amend the plan to clarify that any awards to nonemployee directors under the Plan will be approved by acommittee of the Board composed solely of independent directors; and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has the authority to adopt thisamendment pursuant to Section 17 of the Plan; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. hereby amends the Plan,effective immediately, in the following respects: 

1. Section 16(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence thereof inits entirety and replacing it with the following: 

“This Plan shall be administered by the Board, which may from time to time delegateall or any part of its authority under this Plan to a committee of the Board (or subcommittee thereof) consisting entirely of two or more Nonemployee Directors appointed by the Board; provided, however, that any awards made to Nonemployee Directorsunder this Plan must be approved by a committee of the Board consisting entirely of two or more Nonemployee Directors each of whom is an “independent director” as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed CompanyManual.” 

2. Except as explicitly set forth herein, all other terms of the Plan will continue in full force and effect.
#### Maria Juana Alvarez ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73366.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 2, 2008.

Maria Juana Alvarez Estrada, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Gladys M. SteffensGuzman, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Marie Alvarez Estrada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings in order to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Alvarez Estrada contends that the immigration judge erred in concluding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for relief under the Convention. The generalized evidence attached to her motion did not meet the CAT standard. *See Nuru v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that CAT applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country); *Ordonez v. INS,*345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that motion to reopen must establish prima facie case demonstrating reasonable likelihood that requirements for relief have been satisfied).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9337-9338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3096]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

[[Page 9338]]

proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the 
review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company 
complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 
1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted 
throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank 
holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center 
website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 2, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City(D. Michael Manies, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. CCB Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri; to acquire 11 percent of 
the voting shares of Acquisition Corporation, Leawood, Kansas, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Midamerican Bank & Trust 
Company, Leavenworth, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 1, 
2001.
Robert deV. Frierson
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-3096 Filed 2-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
CareersFAQsContact UsSite Map

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
Search for:
HomeAbout UsMission & ValuesThe Agency helps build better relationships through joint problem-solving and constructive responses to inevitable conflict.Our HistoryAgency DepartmentsOffice of the DirectorOffice of Procurement and Operational SupportOffice of Human ResourcesOffice of BudgetOffice of Information TechnologyOffice of FinanceOffice of the General CounselOffice of Field Operations (Regional)Office of Client ServicesOffice of Field Operations (National)Office of National ProjectsOffice of Conflict Management & Prevention/InternationalCenter for Conflict Resolution EducationOffice of Field AdministrationOffice of Policy and StrategyOffice of Congressional and Public AffairsOffice of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)LocationPhone: (202) 606-8100 
Fax: (202) 606-4251ServicesResolving Labor-Management DisputesCollective Bargaining MediationGrievance MediationAlternative Bargaining ProcessesTechnology Assisted Group Solutions -TAGSBuilding Labor-Management RelationshipsEffective Contract AdministrationEffective  CommunicationsLabor-Management Partnership BuildingOrganizational DevelopmentRepairing Broken RelationshipsAlternative Dispute Resolution for GovernmentWorkplace MediationAdministrative Program DisputesFacilitationDispute Resolution Systems DesignRegulatory NegotiationsPublic Policy DialoguesEducation and OutreachSkills Development TrainingFMCS InstituteFMCS Collaboration with UniversitiesInternational ServicesConferences and WorkshopsArbitrationRequesting a PanelArbitration Policies and ProceduresInformation for FMCS Roster ArbitratorsInformation on Joining the Arbitrator RosterArbitration Contact InformationResourcesFMCS CalendarForms & Applications for FMCS ServicesMediation Agreement FormsArbitrationNotice to FMCS of Upcoming Collective Bargaining (F-7)Labor-Management Grants ProgramFOIA RequestsDocuments and DataMulti-MediaListen to the Conflict Resolutionary PodcastFMCS 101 Video SeriesSpeeches & PresentationsFAQsNLMC InfoVirtual Services
Search for:  Mediation Agreement Forms
Home/Mediation Agreement Forms Mediation Agreement FormsPaula Shank2024-01-18T08:31:37-05:00
Mediation Agreement
Virtual Training Terms and Conditions
Virtual Collective Bargaining Mediation and Neutral Services Terms and Conditions Copyright 2020 FMCS | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  EEO/No FEAR Act  |  PAR  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508 |  SORNs
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

# AGENCY:

Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Daly, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3400.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) announces that the 2002 Correlation, based on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, will be available in January 2002 as part of the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) CD-Rom publications.

                    The CD-Rom may be purchased from the U.S. Department of Commerce,                           ( print page 65179)                        Office of Textiles and Apparel, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., room H3100, Washington, DC 20230, ATTN: Barbara Anderson, at a cost of $25.  Checks or money orders should be made payable to the U.S. Department of Commerce.  The 2002 Correlation will also be available on the OTEXA website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.                

D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 01-31096 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-3402.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 5, 2008.

M. David Weisman, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Hector Rios, Glenville, WV, pro se.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, and DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Hector Rios pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine. *See*21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(l).The district court sentenced Rios to 151 months’ imprisonment based in part on the 100:1 guidelines ratio that leads to substantially harsher sentences for distributing crack relative to powder cocaine. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c). Rios appealed and we appointed counsel, but then granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under *An*
      *509
      *ders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), when counsel was unable to discern a nonfrivolous basis for the appeal. *See United States v. Rios,*224 Fed.Appx. 529 (7th Cir.2007). The Supreme Court granted Rios’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our order, and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of *Kimbrough v. United States,*- U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), which held that sentencing courts are free to consider the disparity in guidelines sentences between offenses involving crack and powder cocaine. *See Rios v. United States,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 876, 169 L.Ed.2d 717 (2008).

Rios did not suggest at sentencing that the 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio resulted in an unreasonably high sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but he did challenge the government’s contention that the drugs involved were crack. Because there is no logical reason to dispute the identity of the drugs apart from avoiding the higher guidelines range for crack offenses, Rios’s challenge is sufficient to preserve the issue of whether the district court could consider the 100:1 ratio at sentencing. *See United States v. Padilla,*520 F.3d 766, 774 (7th Cir.2008). The district court said nothing on the issue and we cannot infer from its silence that it would have imposed the same sentence had it known the ratio was not mandatory. *See id.*

We therefore VACATE Rios’s sentence and REMAND the case to the district court for resentencing in light of *Kimbrough.*
Addendum to the Index License Agreement for Funds, dated September 18, 2002



 Exhibit 10.4 
 ADDENDUM 
 TO THE INDEX LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR FUNDS 
 BY AND BETWEEN 
 MORGAN STANLEY
CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL INC. 
 AND 
 BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS, N.A. 
 This Addendum, effective as of 9/18/02, 2002 (“Effective Date”),
supplements and amends the Index License Agreement For Funds between Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc. (“MSCI”) and Barclays Global Investors, N.A. (“BGI”) dated March 18, 2000 (the
“Agreement”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. 
  

	1.	Grant of License 

 BGI hereby grants MSCI a
worldwide license to license third parties: on a non-exclusive basis (a) to sponsor option contracts or other derivative securities products written on, linked to or otherwise based on the Funds (“Options”); (b) to use and refer
to the iShares Mark as part of the Composite Mark to promote, market, sell and otherwise sponsor the Options; and (c) to make such disclosures about the Options as necessary under any applicable law, rules and regulations. 
  

	2.	Fee Splitting/Payment 

 In the event that
MSCI receives **** for the granting of a license ****, MSCI shall, within sixty (60) days following the close of each calendar quarter **** of all such **** in such calendar quarter. 
  

	3.	Full Disclosure 

 MSCI shall disclose to BGI
the terms of any agreement with any third party granted pursuant to this Addendum. The foregoing obligation shall be met by MSCI providing BGI with a fully executed copy of any such agreement. 
  

	4.	Confidentiality 

 MSCI agrees to keep
confidential the terms of this Addendum, including the fact that it is being negotiated and the substance of the negotiations, except that MSCI may disclose verbally to its third party licensees only the existence of ****. 
  

	5.	Ownership and Protection of Composite Marks 

 The provisions of Section 9 of the Agreement are hereby incorporated herein by reference. 
 [****] Represents material which has been redacted
and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 406 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Anthony HONEYCUT, also known as Ray, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30576

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Mark A. Miller, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Virginia Laughlin Schlueter, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Anthony Honeycut has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Honeycut has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Honeycut’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.