alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2014-0480.

#### Jodka v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 99951, 2014-Ohio-208. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. Cause held for the decision in 2013-1277, *Walker v. Toledo,*6th Dist. Lucas No. L-12-1056, 2013-Ohio-2809; cause consolidated with 2014-0636, *Jodka v. Cleveland,*8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99951, 2014-0hio-208; and briefing schedule stayed.

Kennedy, J., dissents.

*1470French, J., dissents as to the second certified issue.

O’Donnell, J., not participating.
#### Luis Hector LOPEZ-NAVARRETE, a.k.a. Louis Hector Lopez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74451.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 30, 2010.

Bert M. Vega, Esquire, Law Office of Bert M. Vega, Vallejo, CA, for Petitioner.

Ari Nazarov, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District 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 **

Luis Hector Lopez-Navarrete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ properly denied Lopez-Navarrete’s motion to terminate because LopezNavarrete failed to obtain an affirmative statement of prima facie eligibility for naturalization from the government. See *Hernandez de Anderson v. Gonzales,*497 F.3d 927, 933-35 (9th Cir.2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); *Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales,*497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007). Lopez-Navarrete’s contention that in making its decision the agency failed to consid*136er all the relevant factors is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable claim over which we have jurisdiction. *See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2009).

We lack jurisdiction to consider LopezNavarrete’s due process claims because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

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.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Arbitration Policies and Procedures - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SkRbi7ClWA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/arbitration\/arbitration-policies-and-procedures\/\">Arbitration Policies and Procedures<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/arbitration\/arbitration-policies-and-procedures\/embed\/#?secret=SkRbi7ClWA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Arbitration Policies and Procedures” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"SkRbi7ClWA\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"Arbitration Policies and Procedures from the Code of Federal Regulations (Effective May 20, 2019) 29 CFR PART 1404\u2014ARBITRATION SERVICES \u00a0 PART 1404\u2014ARBITRATION SERVICES Subpart A\u2014Arbitration Policy; Administration of Roster 1404.1 Scope and authority. 1404.2 Policy. 1404.3 Administrative responsibilities. Subpart B\u2014Roster of Arbitrators; Admission and Retention 1404.4 Roster and status of members. 1404.5 Listing on the […]"}
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41689

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR MONTANO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-482-1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Montano 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). Montano has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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

August 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41689 Document: 00513639355 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2016
No. 15-41689

2

appellate review. 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.

 Case: 15-41689 Document: 00513639355 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2016
AMENDMENT
      TO

    PROMISSORY
      NOTE

    Dated
      as
      of September 21, 2007 


    


    This
      AMENDMENT TO THE PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”)
      amends
      the Promissory Note dated as of August 30, 2006 by and between Innofone.com,
      Incorporated, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”)
      and
      Joe Mandell (the “Holder”)
      (the
“Note”).
      Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the meanings
      ascribed to such terms in the Note. 

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company and the Holder desire to amend the Note;

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
      of
      which are hereby acknowledged, the Note is hereby amended and modified as
      follows:

    


    1. Amendment
      to Maturity Date Section.
      Maturity Date shall be amended to be September 1, 2008.

    


    2. Amendment
      to Interest Section.
      Interest shall be amended to equal 16% per annum, compounded annually and
      payable on the Maturity Date.

    


    3. Amendment
      to Repayment Section.
      Subsection (a) of the Repayment section shall be amended to state that all
      Principal and accrued and unpaid Interest shall be due and payable in one
      balloon payment on the Maturity Date.

    


    4. No
      Other Amendments.
      Except
      as specifically amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Note shall
      remain in full force and effect.

    


    5. Issuance
      of Stock.
      As
      consideration for the amendment of the terms of the Note as set forth herein,
      the Company agrees to issue to the Holder 100,000 shares of common stock, par
      value $.001 per share, of the Company.

    


    6. Counterparts;
      Facsimile Signatures.
      This
      Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts and by facsimile, each
      of
      which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute
      one
      and the same instrument.


    


    [Signature
      page to follow]

     

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed
      as
      of the date first above written.

    
      	 	 	 
	 	
              INNOFONE.COM,
                INCORPORATED

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	
            	By:  	
            
	 	 	
              

              Alex
                Lightman, 

              CEO
&
President

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
              HOLDER

            
	 	 
	 	
              

              Joseph
                Mandell

            




    
      
         

      

      
        2
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 11953-000]

On November 26, 2001, the Commission issued a notice of the preliminary permit application filed by the Symbiotics, LLC. for the Wickiup Dam Project No. 11953, located on the Deschutes River, in Deschutes County, Florida. The notice established August 13, 2001, as the deadline for filing motions to intervene in the proceeding.

                    On November 26, 2001, a motion to intervene was filed late by American Rivers and WaterWatch of Oregon. Granting the late motion to intervene will not unduly delay or disrupt the proceeding or prejudice other parties to it. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 214,[1]                                          the late motion to intervene filed in this proceeding by American Rivers and WaterWatch of Oregon is granted, subject to the Commission's rules and regulations.                

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             18 CFR 385.214 (2001).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 01-31592 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Marfork Coal Co., Docket Nos. WEVA 2006-788-R, WEVA 2006-789-R, and WEVA 2006-790-R.               

#   Secretary of Labor v. Marfork Coal Co., Docket Nos. WEVA 2006-788-R, WEVA 2006-789-R, and WEVA 2006-790-R. 

meeting_051007.pdf

fmshrc051007.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC              

#   Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC

On December 20, 2022, the Commission issued its decision in Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC, Docket No. 2019-0094.  

Commission- Decision (Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC) PENN 2019-0094.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
{"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":"Revocations and Surrenders – July 24, 2015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NEAMqShCZn\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-july-24-2015\/\">Revocations and Surrenders – July 24, 2015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-july-24-2015\/embed\/#?secret=NEAMqShCZn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations and Surrenders – July 24, 2015” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"NEAMqShCZn\" 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"}
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**Certification      of Periodic Financial Report**

**Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

| Dated:                May 11, 2007 | /s/                Matthew Boyle       |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                               | Matthew                Boyle           |
|                               | Chief                Executive Officer |
|                               |                                   |
|                               |                                   |
|                               |                                   |
| Dated:                May 11, 2007 | /s/                Paul A. McPartlin   |
|                               | Paul                A. McPartlin       |
|                               | Chief                Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-95657 on Form S-8 and No. 333-112472 on Form S-3 of Parlux Fragrances, Inc.
of our report dated June 25, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to transactions with related
parties as described in Note 2 and relating to a restatement as described in
Note 15), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Parlux Fragrances,
Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2004.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Certified Public Accountants

Miami, Florida
June 28, 2004
#### James MEREDITH, Appellant, v. Richard Meredith SCRUGGS, Carol Elizabeth Scruggs, Atlee Gail Scruggs, Meri-Jo Abrams and Louis Edmund Abrams, Appellees.

No. 15019.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 20, 1957.

See also 135 F.Supp. 376.

Robertson, Castle & Anthony, Thomas-M. Waddoups, James Garner Anthony, Frank D. Padgett, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellant.

Arthur K. Trask, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellees.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and' POPE and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing in the above entitled case is denied.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Hawaii in Halberg v. Young, No. 4006, decided April 17, 1957, holding that minor children have no-cause of action for damages arising-from the disability of their mother caused by the negligence of a third person, the decision of this court is vacated, the judgment of the district court, reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the action for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Information Analysis Incorporated                     1998 Report on Form 10-KSB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exhibit 23.2




                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-26249 and No. 33-305136) pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option
Plan and 1996 Stock Option Plan of Information Analysis Incorporated of our
report dated March 3, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Information Analysis Incorporated included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Vienna, Virginia
March 29, 1999


                                       16