alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J

- A15035

- 21

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

VINCULUM, INC

Appellant

v.

GOLI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2048 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment Entered September 22, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s):

No. 2015

- 06333

VINCULUM, INC

v.

GOLI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2127 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment Entered September 22, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s):

No. 2015

- 06333

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2024

This appeal comes to us on remand from our Supreme Court. See

Vinculum, Inc. v. Goli Techs., LLC , 310 A.3d 231 (Pa. 2024). While the

Court agreed with our decision as to another issue for which it granted review,

it reversed the majority decision of this Court as to the trial court ’ s failure toJ

- A15035

- 21

- 2

-

award attorney fees to Vinculum pursuant to the parties ’ contract. 1 Id . (Slip

Op. at 36

- 37). In pertinent part, our High Court directed as follows:

We reverse the Superior Court ’ s decision affirming the trial

court ’ s denial of attorney fees and remand to the Superior Court

with instructions to vacate the trial court ’ s judgment and remand to the trial court for the trial court to hold a hearing solely on the issue of attorney fees. At the hearing, the trial court should provide Vinculum with the opportunity to introduce evidence of the attorney fees that it incurred as a consequence of Goli LLC ’ s breach of the Consulting Agreement. If the evidence is properly admitted over any objections that Goli LLC may make, the trial court may consider the reasonableness of the attorney fees in light of the specific facts of the case and render some award in

Vinculum ’ s favor.

Id

.

Accordingly, we hereby vacate the September 22, 2020 judgment and

remand for the trial court to conduct a hearing on the issue of attorney fees

in a manner consistent with our Supreme Court’s instructions.

Judgment vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

Judge Musmanno did not participate in the post

- remand consideration

or decision of this case

.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 See Vinculum, Inc. v. Goli Techs., LLC , 268 A.3d 456, 2021 WL 5575829

, at *5 (Pa.Super. 2021) (non

- precedential decision) (affirming, inter alia , the trial court’s decision not to award attorney fees). But see id . at *11

- 14 (Bowes, J., dissenting) (opining that the parties’ contract entitled Vinculum to reasonable attorney fees).J

- A15035

- 21

- 3

-



### Date: 4/11/2024
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0633

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NICHOLAS RYAN MCGUIRE,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pur suant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Dan Wilson , Distric t Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 10 2024

04/10/2024
Case Number: DA 22-0633
* 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

June 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11016

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS CEDILLO-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-379-ALL 

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos

Cedillo-Garcia (Cedillo) has moved for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Cedillo has not filed a response. Our independent

review of counsel’s brief and the record 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.
SCHEDULE P Acquisitions, Dispositions, and Changes of Interests

(Form 8865) in a Foreign Partnership

OMB No. 1545-1668

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service © Attach To Form 8865. See Instructions for Form 8865.

Name of person filing Form 8865 Filer’s identifying number

Acquisitions

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 8865. Cat. No. 25943Q Schedule P (Form 8865) 2006

Part I

Part II

(under section 6046A)

(e)

% of interest

before acquisition

(b)

Date of acquisition

(a)

Name, address, and identifying number of

person from whom your interest was acquired

Dispositions

Part III Change in Proportional Interest

Part IV

(c)

FMV of

interest acquired

(d)

Basis in

interest acquired

(f)

% of interest

after acquisition

(a)

Description of change

Name of foreign partnership

Supplemental Information Required To Be Reported (see instructions)

(e)

% of interest

before disposition

(b)

Date of disposition

(c)

FMV of

interest disposed

(d)

Basis in

interest disposed

(f)

% of interest

after disposition

(a)

Name, address, and identifying number of

person who acquired your interest

(e)

% of interest

before change

(b)

Date of change

(c)

FMV of

interest

(d)

Basis in

interest

(f)

% of interest

after change

2006
##### 



a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on
such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesaris
acting Chief Financial Officer
## NRE/林业局公平行动计划

2022

**任务领域:**

自然资源与环境 

**公平行动计划牵头人:**

**Mary Pletcher Rice**,工作环境及绩效办公室行政主管

**Anzanette Randall**,民权办公室主任

**提交日期:2022 年 2 月 10 日**

*霍皮青少年舞者在亚利桑那州科科尼诺国家森林 V Bar V 遗产地的照片。林业局照片由 Deborah Lee Soltesz 拍摄。*

**林业局公平行动计划**

# 执行摘要

NRE/林业局公平行动计划(以下简称“林业局公平行动计划”)代表了一系列广泛的高杠杆行动,这些行动有可能产生深远影响和持久的系统性变革,使员工、部落、合作伙伴和公众受益。要有针对性地以公平的方式履行林业局的使命,就需要改变传统观念、程序、行动和绩效措施,以确保所有人,特别是被边缘化或忽视的农村和城市地区的所有人都能获得全套的惠益、成果和参与机会。 

第 13985 号行政命令《通过联邦政府促进种族平等和支持服务不足的社区》要求每个机构的负责人制定一项计划,以消除妨碍充分和平等地参与计划、服务、采购、承包和其他资助机会的任何障碍。在本计划中,林业局致力于评估障碍,并确定服务不足社区的公平结果,重点关注以下十项行动:增加部落在尊重部落权利和利益的林业局活动方面的信任责任和参与;增加部落和利益相关者的参与和关系建设以及以公平为中心的沟通;建立一个具有代表性和包容性的员工队伍;在员工入职过程中融入公平;通过承包和采购提供经济机会;通过补助和协议提供经济机会;降低部落和服务不足社区的野火风险;将合作和国家林业援助计划扩大到服务不足的社区;将城市林业效益扩大到服务不足的社区;以及增加服务不足社区获得娱乐和户外体验的机会。

信息管理、数据需求评估、绩效管理、监测和制图行动也在制定之中,同时还有将内部学习机会制度化的行动项目。林业局与其他部门合作并通过其他部门开展一些最佳工作。该机构成功的关键在于拥有一支高绩效、有代表性和专注于服务的员工队伍。该机构在公平履行使命方面的成功,在于其员工能够反映他们所服务的对象,建立社区,并与所有公民共享管理。以下是林业局公平行动的概述。  

**全民社区服务**

1. *通过扩大部落共同管理,使机构和部落获得成功* - 让部落和主管官员参与进来,确定障碍和机会,并开展其他侧重于在学习环境中取得成功的活动,最初的重点是落实共同管理和林业局的部落机构,如《部落森林保护法》等。 

2. *通过文化相关战略,加强与部落和服务不足社区的互动和合作伙伴关系* - 关注部落和服务不足社区利益相关者的声音、多样化需求和独特观点,在实现持久变革、公平履行使命方面建立共同的领导。

3. *打造一支具有代表性、包容性和蓬勃发展的林业局员工队伍* - 整合“资源助理、就业团队、公共土地团队和部落青少年保护计划”下的招聘机构并将其作为优先事项,这将极大增加代表性不足员工的成功安置,以满足近期和长期的招聘需求。 

4. *将新员工的入职体验制度化* – 实施一项提倡多元化的入职计划,以满足不断增长的员工队伍和不断变化的*未来工作*环境的包容性目标,并引导新员工了解林业局围绕公平使命交付和部落信任责任的价值观。  

**经济繁荣**

5. *增加小型和弱势企业的公平机会* – 启动一项试点计划,通过提高采购区的能力,与部落和当地小型企业建立更深的关系,表明对经常性的国家和地方外展活动努力的坚定承诺,为小型和弱势企业提供进一步的支持。 

6. *增加协议中的公平性* – 扩大合作伙伴的范围,以纳入更多的部落以及多元化、公平性、包容性和无障碍组织 (DEIA),制定新的外联战略,启动一个工作组来解决影响实施的问题和建立伙伴关系的障碍,促进部落关系并减少部落参与的障碍,同时建立准入标准以减少 DEIA 组织的准入障碍。  

**健康和恢复力**

7. *降低部落和服务不足社区的野火风险* – 通过将数据、信息和地图整合到规划和决策流程及工具中,解决对相对靠近国家森林系统土地的部落、服务不足和社会弱势社区的影响。这项行动将确保在权衡分析和决策过程中理解、考虑和解决人口统计变量。将各种流程纳入野火危机战略工作,以降低野火的严重性和频率,保护生命、家园和社区,实现公平结果,并提高我国森林的健康和恢复能力。 

8. *将合作林业效益扩大到服务不足的社区* - 通过优先考虑服务不足社区的酌情积分,并加强与新符合条件的部落和其他申请人的联系,来吸引农村社区的提案,利用“景观规模恢复计划”,将公平性纳入提案评估和竞争过程指导。 

9. *将城市林业效益扩大到服务不足的社区* - 发布提案征求书,同时强调公平考虑;为提案征求书和评估指南制定明确的标准,以优先考虑服务不足的社区;加强与潜在申请人的联系,以吸引部落和高需求城市社区的建议;努力为服务不足社区和部落的 40% 项目提供资金。 

10. *促进有色人种和社会弱势群体获得娱乐和户外体验* - 促进研究以了解哪些人是游客;他们如何进行娱乐;谁不会来访;获得娱乐机会的障碍;娱乐机会对经济、社区和个人的好处;以及对娱乐机会的偏好和满意度,并制定基于研究的策略,以增加有色人种社区的游览人数。促进使用《美国原住民旅游业和改善游客体验法案》,支持部落文化和旅游企业。 

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.png
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4222]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics; Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Public law 72-363; 5 U.S.C. App. 2) notice is hereby given of a 
meeting of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Advisory 
Council on Transportation Statistics (ACTS) to be held Wednesday, 
February 28, 2001, 10 am to 4 pm. The meeting will take place at the 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 
DC, in conference room 3200-3204 of the Nassif Building.
    The Advisory Council, called for under section 6007 of Public law 
102-240, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, 
December 18, 1991, and chartered on June 19, 1995, was created to 
advise the Director of BTS on transportation statistics and analyses, 
including whether or not the statistics and analysis disseminated by 
the Bureau are of high quality and are based upon the best available 
objective information.
    The agenda for this meeting will include, Director's programs 
update, Advisory Council report to the Director, data quality, data 
gaps, identification of substantive issues, review of plans and 
schedule, other items of interest, discussion and agreement of date(s) 
for subsequent meetings, and comments from the floor.
    Since access to the DOT building is controlled, all persons who 
plan to attend the meeting must notify Ms. Lillian ``Pidge'' Chapman, 
Council Liaison, on (202) 366-1270 prior to February 26, 2001. 
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
available. With the approval of the Chair, members of the public may 
present oral statements at the meeting. Noncommittee members wishing to 
present oral statements, obtain information, or who plan to access the 
building to attend the meeting should also contact Ms. Chapman.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
Council at any time.
    Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an 
interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Ms. Chapman (202) 
366-1270 at least seven days prior to the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 14, 2001.
Ashish Sen,
Director.
[FR Doc. 01-4222 Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-FE-U
```
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2164

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on lambdacyhalothrin.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1993

Mr. GRANDY (for himself and Mr. CASTLE) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on

lambdacyhalothrin.

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

3 SECTION 1. LAMBDACYHALOTHRIN.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:
2

•HR 2164 IH

‘‘ 9902.31.12 [1α(S*),3α(Z)]-

(±)-cyano-(3-

phenoxyphenyl)-

methyl 3-(2-

chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate (CAS

No. 91465–08–

6) (provided for

in subheading

2926.90.27) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/96 ’’.

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32
Certification of Periodic Financial Report
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, W. Gary Suttle, Rockfords Chief Executive Officer,
and James M. Thomson, Rockfords Chief Financial Officer, each certifies with
respect to Rockford Corporations Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004, that:  
    
    the report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  
    
    information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, Rockfords financial condition and results of
operations. Dated: May 17, 2004
    
    
    
    /s/ W. Gary SuttleW. Gary SuttleChief Executive OfficerDated: May 17, 2004
    
    
    
    /s/ James M. ThomsonJames M. ThomsonChief Financial Officer
#### SCOTT WARNER *v.*PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SALISBURY ET AL.

*Patrick J. Flaherty*and *Lorinda S. Coon,*in support of the petition.

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 120 Conn. App. 50 (AC 29297), is denied.

*902
      *Charles R. Andres*and *David M. Cusick,*in opposition.

Decided May 20, 2010
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 13, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 13, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0184. MATTHEW W. CRUSSELLE v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2016SC11607 2016SC11608
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRADY COLLIN DISTEFANO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 266 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of February, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED . The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the Superior Court err in reversing the order entered November 14, 2019, by departing from [the] standard of

review for the admission or exclusion of evidence and so conflicted with binding precedent inasmuch as the Superior Court engaged in a de novo examination of the chal lenged evidence rather than reviewing the [t]rial [c]ourt’s exercise of

discretion?
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. IM R AN AHM ED M IR , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10010

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00141-JAM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B ER ZON, a nd WA TFORD, C i rc uit Judge s . Im ran Ahm e d M ir a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 1 08-m onth se nte nc e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c o nvic tion for distribution of c oc a ine , m e tha m phe tam ine , a

nd he roin, in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1). W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED

OCT 21 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).M ir c onte n ds tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d by

de te rm ining tha

t se nte nc ing e ntra pm e nt is not a le ga l ba sis for a n obje c tion to a

pre se nte nc e re port. There c ord be lie s M i r’ s c onte ntion tha t the c ourt m a d e this de te rm ination. M ore o ve r, c ontra ry to M i r’ s c onte ntion, thedistric t c ourt m e t its proc e dura l obliga tions when it c onside re d a

nd re je c te d M ir’ s obje c tions to the pre se nte nc e re port. Se eFe d . R . C rim . P. 32(i)(3)(B ). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 0 0 1 0 2
Amendment No. 1 to Advisory Agreement



 Exhibit 10.13 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 ADVISORY AGREEMENT 
 This amendment no. 1 to the Advisory Agreement, dated as of November 8, 2005 (the
“Advisory Agreement”), between KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and KBS Capital Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Advisor”), is entered as of
July 18, 2006 (the “Amendment”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Advisory Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, upon the terms set forth in this Amendment, the Advisor has agreed to advance the Company a portion of the Operating Expenses that the Company has incurred through the date hereof and agreed to be repaid this
advance only upon the terms set forth below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 9 of the Advisory Agreement to the
contrary, the Advisor hereby agrees to advance funds (the “Advance”) to the Company equal to the cumulative amount of distributions declared by the Company for the period ending August 31, 2006 less the amount of the Company’s
funds from operations (as defined by NAREIT) from January 1, 2006 through August 31, 2006, provided that in no event will the amount of the Advance be more than the cumulative amount of distributions declared by the Company for the period
ending August 31, 2006. Advisor further agrees that the Company will only be obligated to reimburse the Advisor for the Advance if and to the extent that the Company’s cumulative funds from operations for the period commencing
January 1, 2006 through the date of any such reimbursement exceed the lessor of (i) the cumulative amount of any distributions declared and payable to the Company’s Stockholders as of the date of such reimbursement or (ii) an
amount that is equal to a 7.0% cumulative, non-compounded, annual return on Invested Capital for the Company’s Stockholders for the period from July 18, 2006 through the date of such reimbursement. Advisor understands and agrees that no
interest shall accrue on the Advance being made under this Amendment. 
 Signature page follows. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above
written. 
  

											
	KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.

		 		 	Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
	
	KBS CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC
			
		 	By:	 	Schreiber Real Estate Investments, L.P., a Manager
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	Schreiber Investments, LLC, as general partner
						
		 		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.

		 		 		 		 		 	Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Manager
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41204 Summary Calendar

AURORA DE LA PAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CV-413

- - - - - - - - - - August 5, 1999 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Aurora De La Paz appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in disregarding De La Paz’s subjective complaints while assessing her residual functional capacity, the ALJ posed inadequate hypothetical questions to the vocational expert, and the Commissioner’s determination regarding her disability status was not supportedNo. 98-41204 -2- by substantial evidence. Because De La Paz failed to exhaust her

administrative remedies by raising her argument regarding the hypothetical questions before the Appeals Council in her request for review of the ALJ’s decision, we lack jurisdiction to review this issue. See McQueen v. Apfel , 168 F.3d 152, 155 (5th Cir. 1999); Paul v. Shalala , 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the record and find that the ALJ’s finding regarding De La Paz’s residual functional capacity and the Commissioner’s determination of her disability status were supported by substantial evidence. See Leggett v. Chater , 67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.