alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
III. Agency Component Abbreviations

IV. Exemption 3 Statutes

**V.A. FOIA REQUESTS -- RECEIVED, PROCESSED AND PENDING FOIA REQUESTS**

**V.B.(1). DISPOSITION OF FOIA REQUESTS -- ALL PROCESSED REQUESTS**

**V.B.(2). DISPOSITION OF FOIA REQUESTS -- "OTHER" REASONS FOR "FULL DENIALS BASED ON REASONS OTHER THAN EXEMPTIONS"**

**V.B.(3). DISPOSITION OF FOIA REQUESTS -- NUMBER OF TIMES EXEMPTIONS APPLIED**

**VI.A. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OF INITIAL DETERMINATIONS OF FOIA REQUESTS -- RECEIVED, PROCESSED, AND PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS**

**VI.B. DISPOSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS -- ALL PROCESSED APPEALS**

**VI.C.(1). REASONS FOR DENIAL ON APPEAL -- NUMBER OF TIMES EXEMPTIONS APPLIED**

**VI.C.(2). REASONS FOR DENIAL ON APPEAL -- REASONS OTHER THAN EXEMPTIONS**

**VI.C.(3). REASONS FOR DENIAL ON APPEAL -- "OTHER" REASONS**

**VI.C.(4). RESPONSE TIME FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS**

**VI.C.(5). TEN OLDEST PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS**

**VII.A. FOIA REQUESTS -- RESPONSE TIME FOR ALL PROCESSED PERFECTED REQUESTS**

**VII.B. PROCESSED REQUESTS -- RESPONSE TIME FOR PERFECTED REQUESTS IN WHICH INFORMATION WAS GRANTED**

**VII.C. PROCESSED SIMPLE REQUESTS -- RESPONSE TIME IN DAY INCREMENTS**

**VII.C. PROCESSED COMPLEX REQUESTS -- RESPONSE TIME IN DAY INCREMENTS**

**VII.C. PROCESSED REQUESTS GRANTED EXPEDITED PROCESSING -- RESPONSE TIME IN DAY INCREMENTS**

**VII.D. PENDING REQUESTS -- ALL PENDING PERFECTED REQUESTS**

**VII.E. PENDING REQUESTS -- TEN OLDEST PENDING PERFECTED REQUESTS**

**VIII.A. REQUESTS FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING**

**VIII.B. Requests for Fee Waiver**

**XII.A. Backlogs of FOIA Requests and Administrative Appeals**

**XII.B. CONSULTATIONS ON FOIA REQUESTS -- RECEIVED, PROCESSED, AND PENDING CONSULTATIONS**

**XII.C. CONSULTATIONS ON FOIA REQUESTS -- TEN OLDEST CONSULTATIONS RECEIVED FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND PENDING AT THE AGENCY**

**XII.D.(1). COMPARISON OF NUMBERS OF REQUESTS FROM PREVIOUS AND CURRENT ANNUAL REPORT -- REQUESTS RECEIVED AND PROCESSED**

**XII.D.(2). COMPARISON OF NUMBERS OF REQUESTS FROM PREVIOUS AND CURRENT ANNUAL REPORT -- BACKLOGGED REQUESTS**

**XII.E.(1). COMPARISON OF NUMBERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS FROM PREVIOUS AND CURRENT ANNUAL REPORT -- APPEALS RECEIVED AND PROCESSED**

**XII.E.(2). COMPARISON OF NUMBERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS FROM PREVIOUS AND CURRENT ANNUAL REPORT -- BACKLOGGED APPEALS**

**
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-30606 Summary Calendar

__________________ RONNIE JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus BURL CAIN, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-389-M

---------------------- January 14, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ronnie James, a Louisiana prisoner (# 81438), appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus as an abuse of the writ. This court had reversed and remanded James’ previous appeal of the denial of his petition, directing the district court to determine: whetherNo. 96-30606 -2- James’ trial counsel had failed to inform James of parole procedure when James pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1976; if so, whether this failure constituted ineffective assistance of counsel; and whether in these circumstances James would be prejudiced by having his petition dismissed as an abuse of the writ. See James v. Cain , 56 F.3d 662 (5th Cir. 1995).Because James cannot show prejudice as to his ineffectiveassistance claim, see Armstead v. Scott , 37 F.3d 202, 206, 210-11 (5th Cir. 1994), cert . denied , 115 S. Ct. 1709 (1995), the district court did abuse its discretion in dismissing his petition as an abuse of the writ. AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Glas-Aire Industries Group, Ltd., a Nevada
corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

     The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Form 10-KSB") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



Dated: April 29, 2003               /s/ Craig Grossman
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    Craig Grossman
                                    Chief Executive Officer


Dated: April 29, 2003               /s/ Linda Kwan
                                    -------------------------------
                                    Linda Kwan
                                    Chief Financial Officer
exv10w18



 





Exhibit 10.18


Non-Employee Director Compensation Arrangements



     
In August 2006, our board of
directors adopted a compensation program for non-employee
directors. This compensation program will be effective
immediately upon the closing of our initial public offering. Pursuant to this
program, each member of our board of directors who is not an
employee will receive the following cash compensation for board
services, as applicable:






			
	 	• 	
    $20,000 per year for service as a board member;
	 
	 	• 	
    $12,000 per year for service as chairman of the audit
    committee;
	 
	 	• 	
    $5,000 per year for service as chairman of the compensation
    committee;
	 
	 	• 	
    $5,000 per year for service as chairman of the nominating
    and corporate governance committee;
	 
	 	• 	
    $1,500 for each board meeting attended in person ($500 for
    meetings attended by video or telephone conference);
	 
	 	• 	
    $500 for each audit committee meeting attended ($1,000 for the
    chairman of the audit committee for each meeting attended);
	 
	 	• 	
    $500 for each compensation committee meeting attended; and
	 
	 	• 	
    $500 for each nominating and corporate governance committee
    meeting attended.



     
We will also reimburse our non-employee directors for
their reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings of our
board of directors and committees of the board of directors.



     
Additionally, members of our board of directors who are not our
employees will receive non-statutory stock options under our
2006 Equity Incentive Plan, which will become effective as of
the effective date of our initial public offering. Each non-employee director
joining our board of directors after the closing of our initial
public offering will automatically be granted a non-statutory stock
option to purchase 30,000 shares of common stock with
an exercise price equal to the then fair market value of our
common stock. On the date of each annual meeting of our
stockholders beginning in 2007, each non-employee will also
automatically be granted a non-statutory stock option to
purchase 10,000 shares of our common stock on that
date with an exercise price equal to the then fair market value
of our common stock. Initial grants will vest monthly over three
years. Automatic annual grants will vest over twelve months. All
stock options granted under our 2006 Equity Incentive Plan may
have a term of up to ten years.
#### Raymond CHRISTOPH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. C. YOUNG, Sergeant, Dawson State Jail; R. Winfield, Assistant Warden, Dawson State Jail; Linda Richey, Regional Director Region IV Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-11214

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 9, 2014.

Raymond Earnest Christoph, Palestine, TX, pro se.

*269Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Raymond Christoph, Texas prisoner # 652906, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint against various employees of the Dawson State Jail and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice alleging that they improperly seized his artwork from his prison cell. Christoph asserted that his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the confiscation of his artwork. The district court conducted an independent review of the record.

Citing *Parrott v. Taylor,*451 U.S. 527, 544, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), and *Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), the district court dismissed Christoph’s § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We review de novo the dismissal for failure to state a claim by accepting the plaintiffs factual allegations as true and determining whether no relief could be granted consistent with those allegations. *See Hart v. Hairston,*343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir.2003). Under the *Parratt/Hudson*doctrine, “a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest caused by a state employee’s random, unauthorized conduct does not give rise to a § 1983 procedural due process claim, unless the State fails to provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy.” *See Zinermon v. Burch,*494 U.S. 113, 115, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990). The *Parratt/Hudson*doctrine, which affects only procedural due process claims, does not apply to Christoph’s First Amendment freedom of expression claim, a substantive constitutional claim. *See Zinermon,*494 U.S. at 125-28, 110 S.Ct. 975; *Thibodeaux v. Bordelon,*740 F.2d 329, 333 (5th Cir.1984). As the substantive First Amendment claim could not be properly dismissed under the *Parratt/Hudson*doctrine, the dismissal for failure to state a claim based on the doctrine was error. The dismissal is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for additional proceedings.

*

 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.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

February 23, 2015

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 5, 2015

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Pocahontas Coal Co., LLC. v. Secretary of Labor, Docket 

No. WEVA 2014-202-R; and Pocahontas Coal Co., LLC v. 

Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. WEVA 2014-642-R, et al. (Issues 

include whether the Administrative Law Judges erred in ruling that 

they lacked jurisdiction to review a Notice of Pattern of Violations 

and a Notice of Safeguard, respectively.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Emogene Johnson

Administrative Assistant
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 13

- 00266

- CR

IN RE Juan MORENO

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 8, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS D ISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On April 25, 2013, Relator Juan Moreno filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to

compel the court reporter in Bexar County, Texas to produce a copy of the record in the case.

However, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested re lief. By statute, this court

has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the

court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See

T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221 (a)

- (b) ( West 2004)



### . We conclude the writ is not necessary to

enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proce eding arises out of Cause No. 2009CR8686D, styled State of Texas v. Juan Moreno , pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18      U.S.C. § 1350, I, Scott D. Kaplan, Chief Executive Officer of Pruco      Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, hereby certify that the Company’s      Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, containing      the financial statements of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable Contract Real      Property Account (a separate account of Pruco Life Insurance Company of      New Jersey) and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial      condition and results of operations of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable      Contract Real Property Account and The Prudential Variable Contract Real      Property Partnership.        Date: November 13, 2007                /s/ Scott D. Kaplan    Scott D. Kaplan    Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4087]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: February 20, 2001.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, 
Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 12, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-4087 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
VIII

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2266

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 20, 1994

Received

AUGUST 2 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

For the relief of Orlando Wayne Naraysingh.

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

3 SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR ORLANDO

4 WAYNE NARAYSINGH.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Orlando Wayne Naraysingh shall

6 be classified as a child under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the

7 Immigration and Nationality Act for purposes of approval

8 of a relative visa petition filed under section 204 of such

9 Act by his adoptive parent and the filing of an application

10 for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status.
2

HR 2266 RFS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Orlando Wayne

2 Naraysingh enters the United States before the filing

3 deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall be considered

4 to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if other5 wise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under

6 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of

7 the date of the enactment of this Act.

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the pe10 tition and the application for issuance of an immigrant

11 visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed

12 with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the

13 enactment of this Act.

14 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

15 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res16 idence to Orlando Wayne Naraysingh, the Secretary of

17 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, for

18 the current or next following fiscal year, the worldwide

19 level of family-sponsored immigrants under section

20 201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

21 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

22 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural

23 parents, brothers, and sisters of Orlando Wayne

24 Naraysingh shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be
3

HR 2266 RFS

1 accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immi2 gration and Nationality Act.

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Erasmo ESCAMILLA-GALLE-GOS, a.k.a. David Erasmo Ecsamil-la, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-10378.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Monte Cress Clausen, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alfred Islas, Alfred Islas, Attorney-at-Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

David Erasmo Escamilla-Gallegos, pro se.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David Erasmo Escamilla-Gallegos appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Escamilla-Gallegos contends that his guilty plea was involuntary because, at the time of his pretrial conference and change-of-plea hearing, his confusion was apparent and was aggravated by his recent use of pain medication. We review de novo whether a defendant’s plea was voluntary. *See United States v. Kaczynski,*289 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.2001). Contrary to Escamilla-Gallegos’s contention, his statements at the hearing reflect that he pleaded guilty voluntarily. *See id.*at 1115 (substantial weight is given to defendant’s in-court statements).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
exv10w1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation




     Effective August 8, 2006, directors of Save the World Air, Inc. who are not employees of
the company are compensated for their services as follows:



     (i) annual cash compensation to non-employee directors in the following amounts:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Board Member
	 	$	7,500	 
	Chairman of the Board
	 	$	25,000	 
	Audit Committee Chair
	 	$	20,000	 
	Compensation Committee Chair
	 	$	15,000	 
	Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee Chair
	 	$	15,000;	 






     (ii) $1,000 for each Board meeting they attend, whether in person or telephonically;



     (iii) $500 for each committee meeting they attend, whether in person or telephonically;



     (iv) a grant of an option to purchase 30,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an
exercise price equal to the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the trading day
immediately preceding the date of grant, each such option to vest fully on the first anniversary of
the date of grant; and



     (v) upon joining the Board, a new director will receive a grant of an option on the same terms
as an incumbent director, such grant to be made at the time of the next grant of options to
non-employee directors.
#### In Re Michael SHARP.

No. 2010-1148.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2010.

John S. Egbert, Egbert Law Offices, of Houston, TX, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Kevin S. Wilson.

Thomas V. Shaw, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Benjamin D.M. Wood, Associate Solicitor.

*502LINN, CLEVENGER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Safeskin Corporation:


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Safeskin
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1996. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Safeskin
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and the consolidated
results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the two years in
the period ended December 31, 1996 in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.



                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


San Diego, California
February 17, 1997