alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1064 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Robert Anderson, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ITT INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, and Defendant - Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:05cv720) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 4, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen William Robinson, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In Claim VI, the district court relied on precedent from its own district in concluding that the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) (2000) are jurisdictional. We express no opinion on this issue as it is not necessary for resolution of the appeal. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Anderson appeals the district court’s orders denying relief in his action stemming from claims of wrongful termination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States ex rel. Anderson v. ITT Indus. Corp. , No. 1:05cv720 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 14, 2005 & entered Dec. 16, 2005; Jan. 11, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 4.26


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO




INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR 



AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT
DIRECTOR AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into this
25th day of April, 2022, by and between Infobird Co., Ltd, a company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands (the
“Company”) and Feng Liu, an individual (the “Director”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and the Director entered into an Independent Director Agreement, dated as of June 12, 2020 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Director now wish to amend the Agreement in certain respects.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein, and
other consideration,
the receipt and
sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Company
and the Director hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with
the following:



 


Compensation. In recognition
of the services to be provided by the Director, the Company agrees to pay to the Director an annual cash fee of $20,000 payable
annually on May 1st (the “Compensation”). In the event that the Director serves less than twelve consecutive
months as a member of the Board, the Company shall only be obligated to pay the pro rata portion of the Compensation to the Director
for services performed during such year.


 


		2.	In all other respects, the terms of the Agreement
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.



 


Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 









    	 



    	 



    




 










	 	INFOBIRD CO., LTD
	 	 
	 	By: /s/ Yimin Wu
	 	Name: Yimin Wu
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
	 	of the Board of Directors





 








	 	DIRECTOR:
	 	 
	 	/s/ Feng Liu
	 	Name: Feng Liu
Ex. 99.3 El Plamito Project Contract_Page_1.jpg  Ex. 99.3 El Plamito Project Contract_Page_2.jpg  Ex. 99.3 El Plamito Project Contract_Page_3.jpg  Ex. 99.3 El Plamito Project Contract_Page_4.jpg  Ex. 99.3 El Plamito Project Contract_Page_5.jpg  Ex. 99.3 El Plamito Project Contract_Page_6.jpg  Ex. 99.3 El Plamito Project Contract_Page_7.jpg  Ex. 99.3 El Plamito Project Contract_Page_8.jpg
#### Alejandro MARIN-POSADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74389.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Simon Salinas, Esquire, Tustin, CA, for Petitioner.

Joanne E. Johnson, Esquire, Arthur Leonid Rabin, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Marin-Posada, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *INS v. EliasZacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Marin Posada failed to demonstrate the urban guerrillas targeted him on account of his membership in a particular social group or based on an actual or imputed political opinion. *See Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004). Because Marin-Posada failed to demonstrate he was or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PRUCO LIFE
VARIABLE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OF NET ASSETS; STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000801348
<NAME> PRUCO LIFE VARIABLE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             119,784,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,897,240
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  540,830
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,356,410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|    | 
|--- | 
|1.  | 
|    | 
|2.  | 
|    | 
|3.  | 
|    | 
|4.  | 
|    | 
|5.  | 
|    | 
|6.  | 
|    | 
|7.  | 
|    | 
|8.  | 
|    | 
|9.  | 
|    | 
|10. | 
|    | 
|11. | 
|    | 
|12. | 
|    | 
|13. | 
|    | 
|14. | 
|    | 
|15. | 
|    | 
|16. | 
|    | 
|17. | 
|    | 
|18. | 
|    | 
|19. | 
|    | 
|20. |
#### Pedro Raymundo BERNABE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 10-2437.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 22, 2010.

Filed: Dec. 28, 2010.

Pedro Raymundo Bernabe, Lexington, NE, pro se.

Ilissa M. Gould, Trial Attorney, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Pedro Raymundo Bernabe petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). After careful review, we conclude the denial of asylum and related relief is supported by substantial evidence in the record. *See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey,*551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir.2008); *Samedov v. Gonzales,*422 F.3d 704, 708-09 (8th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition.
#### BANK OF MEEKER v. SECURITY STATE BANK OF WEWOKA.

No. 34704.

Nov. 21, 1950.

*224 P. 2d 964.*

*590Frank Seay and Homer H. Bishop, both of Seminole, for plaintiff in error.

Horsley, Epton & Culp, of Wewoka, for defendant in error.

LUTTRELL, J.

This action was commenced by Bank of Meeker, Oklahoma, against Jack Hair for the possession of an automobile. Security State Bank of Wewoka intervened. A motion for judgment on the pleadings was sustained and judgment was entered for the Security State Bank. The Bank of Meeker appeals.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that no notice of intention to appeal was given within ten days after the judgment was rendered. The plaintiff did not give notice of intention to appeal from the judgment on the pleadings, but filed a motion for new trial and attempts to appeal from the order overruling the motion for new trial. This order was made more than ten days after the judgment was rendered. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. Miller & Glass v. Tulsa Tribune Co., 174 Okla. 80, 49 P. 2d 726; Forrest E. Gilmore Co. v. James, 156 Okla. 216, 10 P. 2d 392. In Forrest E. Gilmore Co. v. James, supra, it is stated:

> “Where an appeal is from a judgment rendered on the pleadings, a motion for new trial is unnecessary, and the filing thereof does not extend the time in which notice of appeal may be given, and, where no notice of appeal is given at the time of the rendition of said judgment or within 10 days thereafter, as required by section 782, C.O.S. 1921, this court acquires no jurisdiction, and the appeal will be dismissed.”

Appeal dismissed.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 24, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 23

- 00893

- CV

SAMMIE ANDERSON AND SAMUEL BIBLE , Appellants V. DANIEL STAFFORD , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 23

- 02961

- E

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Goldstein

On January 30, 2024, we sent a letter to the parties questioning our jurisdiction

because it appears the appeal is moot. We directed appellant s to file a letter brief

addressing our jurisdictional concern no later than February 9, 20 24. We expressly

cautioned appellant s that failure to do so might result in the dismissal of the appeal

without further notice. To date, appellant s have not filed a letter brief nor further

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).– 2

–

230893F.P05 / B o n n i e L e e G o l d s t e i n / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SAMMIE ANDERSON AND SAMUEL BIBLE, Appellants

No. 05

- 23

- 00893

- CV V.

DANIEL STAFFORD, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 23

- 02961

- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Reichek and Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 24th day of April

, 2024

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<S>                                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                     APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                                          JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                                                     15,169
<SECURITIES>                                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                           15,169
<PP&E>                                                                      7,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                                              1,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                             24,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                      17,898
<BONDS>                                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                                    6,780
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                               (219,587)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                               24,091
<SALES>                                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                                0
<CGS>                                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          155,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                          5,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          (160,519)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                      (160,519)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                             (160,519)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                                (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                (.02)



</TABLE>
{"id":1459,"date":"2012-04-24T13:46:37","date_gmt":"2012-04-24T17:46:37","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1459"},"modified":"2018-08-17T13:48:32","modified_gmt":"2018-08-17T17:48:32","slug":"remarks-of-fmc-chairman-richard-a-lidinsky-jr-at-the-38th-annual-ncbfaa-conference","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/remarks-of-fmc-chairman-richard-a-lidinsky-jr-at-the-38th-annual-ncbfaa-conference\/","title":{"rendered":"Remarks of FMC Chairman Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. at the 38th Annual NCBFAA Conference"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>April 24, 2012<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/assets\/1\/News\/Chairman_Lidinsky_Remarks_at_38th_Annual_NCBFAA_Confernece.pdf\">Click here to download document<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>April 24, 2012 Click here to download document<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7,29],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1459"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1459"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1459\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1460,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1459\/revisions\/1460"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
86 A.3d 229

#### David LEHRMAN, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 18, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of February 2014, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40140

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AARON MORALES-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-825-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Aaron MoralesGonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Morales-Gonzalez has not filed a response and has 

served his sentence. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant 

portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40140 Document: 00512969271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
No. 14-40140

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

in part as frivolous, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, see United States 

v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir. 2007).

2

 Case: 14-40140 Document: 00512969271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
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:  FMCS Supports “Progress Through Partnership” at Florida Labor-Management Conference
Home/News/FMCS Supports “Progress Through Partnership” at Florida Labor-Management Conference Previous			Next
FMCS Supports “Progress Through Partnership” at Florida Labor-Management Conference										The four-day Florida Labor Management Conference in St. Petersburg Beach ends on a high note with strong support from FMCS mediators promoting the conference theme of Progress Through Partnership and taking part in the program that reached a  big audience of union and employer representatives.

Click here for a Twitter post from the conference.  Follow the FMCS on Twitter here.
John Arnold2016-11-01T17:33:35-04:00													Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
FacebookTwitterEmail Copyright 2020 FMCS | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  EEO/No FEAR Act  |  PAR  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508 |  SORNs
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00073

- CV

IN RE: MARIA CRUZ BUSALEH

Original Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### ORDER

On August 29, 2014, Maria Cruz Busaleh, Relator, filed a petition for writ of mandamus

and a motion for emergency relief. The motion fo r emergency relief requests that this Court stay

any and all underlying proceedings pending this Court’s ruling on the petition for writ of

mandamus.

After reviewing the relator’s petition and motion, this Court is of the opinion that the

temporary relief should be granted, and all proceedings and activities in the trial court should be

stayed pending the ruling of this Court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Now, therefore, it is ordered that all proceedings and activities, including, but not l imited

to, any proceedings on the Motion to Modify Temporary Orders, which is presently set for

hearing on September 5, 2014, in cause number FA

- 14

- 41684 in the County Court at Law of

Fannin County, Texas, is hereby stayed pending the ruling of this Court on the mandamus before

us in this case.

We direct the real party in interest to file a response to this petition for writ of mandamus,

to be received by this Court on or before September 1 2 , 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: August 29, 2014