alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BILLY R. TYLER, ) ) Petitioner, ) 

# FILED JUL 21 2009 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts

) v. ) ) Civil ActionNo. 

# 09 1347 EPA ADMINISTRATOR, ) ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court onreview ofpetitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis and hispro se petition for a writ ofmandamus. The Court will grant the application and deny the petition. Petitioner alleges that he lives on a "contaminated superfund site in Omaha, Nebraska," and that he "suffers from arrested mental development due to extreme lead poisoning" causedby contaminants in the soil. Pet. at 2. He demands "awrit ofmandamus compellingrespondents to
use the 'superfund' moneyto remove the diaspora ofholocaust oflead contamination offof' the site. Id. at 1. Mandamus reliefis proper onlyif"(1) the plaintiffhas a clearright to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear dutyto act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). The party seeking mandamus has the "burden ofshowing that [his] right to issuance ofthe writ is 'clear and indisputable.'" GulfstreamAerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271,289 (1988) (citingBankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384(1953)). Where the action petitioner seeks to compel is discretionary, he has no clearright to reliefand mandamus therefore is not an appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Heckler v. Ringer, 466 

# u.s. 602,616 (1984). Petitioner does not establish any ofthese elements. He fails to demonstrate his clearright to relief, the respondents' clear duty to expend funds as petitionerrequests, and the lack ofany other adequate remedy. Because the petition does not state a claim upon which mandamus relief maybe granted, the petition will be denied. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separatelyon this
same date.

United States District Judge
Date: 

# 1--' I("b

# f
§ 9409.3 Definitions. As used in this part, the term— *Commission* means the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 15301 *et seq.*
*Commission employee or employee* means: ( a ) Any current or former officer or employee of the Commission;
( b ) Any other individual hired through contractual agreement by or on behalf of the Commission or who has performed or is performing services under an agreement for the Commission; and
( c ) Any individual who served or is serving in any consulting or advisory capacity to the Commission, whether formal or informal.
( d ) This definition does not include persons who are no longer employed by the Commission and who are retained or hired as expert witnesses or who agree to testify about general matters, matters available to the public, or matters with which they had no specific involvement or responsibility during their employment with the Commission.
*Demand* means a subpoena, or an order or other command of a court or other competent authority, for the production, disclosure, or release of records or for the appearance and testimony of a Commission employee that is issued in a legal proceeding.
*General Counsel* means the General Counsel of the Commission or a person to whom the General Counsel has delegated authority under this part.
*Legal proceeding* means any matter before a court of law, administrative board or tribunal, commission, administrative law judge, hearing officer, or other body that conducts a legal or administrative proceeding. Legal proceeding includes all phases of litigation.
*Records or official records and information* means: ( a ) All documents and materials that are Commission records under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552);
( b ) All other documents and materials contained in files of the Commission; and
( c ) All other information or materials acquired by a Commission employee in the performance of his or her official duties or because of his or her official status.
*Request* means any informal request, by whatever method, for the production of records and information or for testimony that has not been ordered by a court or other competent authority.
*Testimony* means any written or oral statements, including depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, declarations, interviews, and statements made by an individual in connection with a legal proceeding.
**Exhibit13.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

**Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,United States Code)**

** **

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), theundersigned officer of Millicom International Cellular, S.A., a companyincorporated under the laws of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (the *“Company”*), hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended *December 31, 2005* (the *“Report”*)of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | May 5, 2006 | By:    | /s/ DAVID SACH                                    |   |
|--------|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |   | Name:  David  Sach                           |
|   |             |   | Title:    Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, as the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of C&F
Financial Corporation, certify that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of C&F Financial Corporation at the dates
and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation
to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 7, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Larry G. Dillon                                 
|                    |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                    |  | 
|Date: March 7, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/Thomas F. Cherry                                 
|                    |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99

Buenos Aires, June 30, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

        Pistrelli, Diaz y Asociados (signs member of Andersen), our independent
public accountant, has represented us that its audit of our consolidated
financial statements as of December 31, 2001 was subject to Andersen's quality
control system for its U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards and that there was appropriate continuity of Pistrelli,
Diaz y Asociados personnel working on the audit, availability of U.S. national
office consultation and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Pistrelli, Diaz y Asociados to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.

Very truly yours,


                                    BANCO RIO DE LA PLATA S.A.



                                    By:         /s/ Angel O. Agaliano
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:   Angel O. Agaliano
                                        Title:  Principal Accounting Officer
APPLICANT MICHAEL LOUIS BRISCO APPLICATION NO. 53.391-06

APPLICATION FOR 11.07 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ACTION TAKEN

DISMISSED, SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 4(a)-

(c).

JUDGE

/Q 22/s

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


     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB for the quarter
ended  December  31,  2006 (the  "Report")  of  Farnsworth  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company") as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  we, Gary N.
Pelehaty,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Charles  Alessi,  Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer,  Treasurer and Secretary,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Gary N. Pelehaty                    /s/ Charles Alessi
--------------------------------        ----------------------------------------
Gary N. Pelehaty .                      Charles Alessi
President and Chief Executive Officer   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
                                        Treasurer and Secretary



February 12, 2007
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.230 What is the effect of a pending appeal? ( a ) Indian tribes and tribal organizations shall continue performance of a contract during the appeal of any claims to the same extent they would had there been no dispute.
( b ) A pending dispute will not affect or bar the negotiation or award of any subsequent contract or negotiation between the parties.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000835541
<NAME> SOLECTRON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-25-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-26-2000
<CASH>                                       2,598,700
<SECURITIES>                                   821,178
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,846,647
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,061
<INVENTORY>                                  2,522,509
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,015,622
<PP&E>                                       1,536,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                 703,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,154,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,274,748
<BONDS>                                      3,295,770
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           601
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,568,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,154,611
<SALES>                                      9,227,508
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,227,508
<CGS>                                        8,377,429
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,377,429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               381,404
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,774
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                494,680
<INCOME-TAX>                                   158,296
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            336,384
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       (3,480)
<NET-INCOME>                                   332,904
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54


</TABLE>
# Resources for Rural Entrepreneurs

508_RD_FederalEntrepreneurshipGuide_021122.pdf
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

 

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT 

USDA Accepting Applications for Distance Learning and Telemedicine Funding

(May 16, 2017) USDA Rural Development Acting Undersecretary Roger Glendenning announced today that 

the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is accepting applications for Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) 

Grant Program funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. 

DLT grants are designed to provide access to education, training, and health care resources for rural Americans. 

The DLT Program supports telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of 

telecommunications, computer networks, and advanced technologies that benefit rural communities.

A minimum grant amount of $50,000 and a maximum grant amount of $500,000 will be awarded through a 

competitive process for FY 2017, based on requirements that can be found at 7 CFR part 1703, including details 

on the July 17, 2017 deadline for applying for DLT grant funding. Of the funds made available this year, $1.6 

million will be prioritized to provide for communication upgrades between ambulances, emergency 

transportation vehicles and medical facilities.

Applicants are encouraged to review the FY 2017 application guide and sample material that is available online 

at: https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/distance-learning-telemedicine-grants. 

More information on how to apply for this funding is available on pages 22477-22482 of the May 16, 2017 

Federal Register.

#
#### § 310.20 Saving of blood from livestock as an edible product.

Blood may be saved for edible purposes at official establishments provided it is derived from livestock, the carcasses of which are inspected and passed, and the blood is collected and handled in a manner so as not to render it adulterated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and regulations issued pursuant thereto. The defibrination of blood intended for human food purposes shall not be done with the hands. Anticoagulants may be used in accordance with 21 CFR chapter I, subchapter A and subchapter B, or by regulation in 9 CFR chapter III, subchapter A or subchapter E.

[86 FR 33088, June 24, 2021]
8°00,
22810

)

vy
h ug

NG

PON eH, Wop.
Q TAWY
ye

WE des
oS

i

en “ ©) BATHYMETRIC CONTOUR INTERVAL 2 ‘METERS

ety . ws ~ WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 1 METER CONTOURS
; me DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER

CAPE CANAVERAL, FL.
#716=

So

@E

GS

OOS
AY

ZY

ss)

SS

==>

a

ISS =p

oe

VINE sO wo ANIA Hh NOL (00 oro 1 NW ‘es
Wd (Peaavuny edyy |
92

L SNAAVHC
#### John J. Fish, Respondent, v. Henrietta Hahn, Appellant.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
<PAGE>

T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value Fund, Inc.


 Supplement to prospectus dated May 1, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Important Information About the Small-Cap Value Fund

 The fund will not accept new accounts after 4:00 p.m. on May 24, 2002. The fund
 will not accept new IRA accounts but will permit direct rollovers from
 qualified retirement plans into new IRA accounts in the fund.

 Shareholders who held shares prior to the closing are not affected. Purchases
 of additional shares are permitted for all existing accounts.

 The closing does not restrict shareholders from selling shares in their fund
 accounts.

 When deemed to be in the fund's best interests, the fund reserves the right to
 permit certain types of investors to open new accounts in the fund, to impose
 further restrictions, or to close the fund to any additional investments, all
 without notice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The date of this supplement is May 10, 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 F46-041   5/10/02

<PAGE>

T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value Fund, Inc.
   T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value Fund--Advisor Class

 Supplement to prospectus dated May 1, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Important Information About the Small-Cap Value Fund--Advisor Class

 The fund will not accept new accounts after 4:00 p.m. on May 24, 2002. The fund
 will not accept new IRA accounts but will permit direct rollovers from
 qualified retirement plans into new IRA accounts in the fund.

 Shareholders who held shares prior to the closing are not affected. Purchases
 of additional shares are permitted for all existing accounts.

 The closing does not restrict shareholders from selling shares in their fund
 accounts.

 When deemed to be in the fund's best interests, the fund reserves the right to
 permit certain types of investors to open new accounts in the fund, to impose
 further restrictions, or to close the fund to any additional investments, all
 without notice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The date of this supplement is May 10, 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 E246-041   5/10/02
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Alliance Semiconductor Corporation Financil Data Schedule
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000913293
<NAME>                        Alliance Semiconductor
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-3-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-3-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         6,219
<SECURITIES>                                   5,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,527
<INVENTORY>                                    12,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               36,788
<PP&E>                                         22,802
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 193,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,686
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       416
<OTHER-SE>                                     163,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   193,557
<SALES>                                        47,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               47,783
<CGS>                                          60,231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  60,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               26,751
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24,502)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   8,397
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (32,899)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      10,856
<NET-INCOME>                                   (22,043)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.53)



</TABLE>
#### THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Appellee v. BOLESLAW S. ROLINSKI, Appellant

Criminal No. 14-A

District Court of Guam Appellate Division

May 3, 1957

*385
      *Counsel for Appellee:*W. Scott BARRETT, *Deputy Island Attorney*

*Counsel for Appellant:*E. R. Crain

Before MCLAUGHLIN and WIIG, *United States District Judges,*and SHRIVER, *United States Judge,*District Court of Guam

PER CURIAM

OPINION

The appellant was convicted in the Island Court of Guam of the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of § 23405(a) of the Government Code of Guam. His appeal is based upon the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment.

The evidence showed that the appellant was driving an automobile in an erratic fashion on a public highway in Guam and that such conduct was observed by Guam policemen and armed services police who were in a police car. The police car followed the appellant’s car which turned off on a side road. When the appellant’s car stopped and he was asked for his driver’s license, he got out of his car and was staggering so badly he could hardly stand. An officer smelled the odor of alcohol on the breath of the appellant. The appellant took a pencil from his pocket and slashed at the arresting officer. He used abusive language. He was handcuffed and taken to the police station, booked and placed in a cell. He continued to shout and pound on the cell door for a considerable time. In our view this conduct clearly showed that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

*386In *Marte v. Government of Guam,*115 F.Supp. 524, we reversed a conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor upon the ground that the transcript did not show sufficient facts to warrant the conclusion of intoxication. We said in that case:

> In this case we find no evidence at all to support a finding that anyone smelled alcohol on the breath of the defendant; we find strong indications that no sobriety test was given, and positive indications that a medical examiner formed his opinion without making an examination of the defendant. The result is that no competent evidence is found in the record on which a finding of intoxication could reasonably have been based, and the conviction on this charge is accordingly reversed.

The present case, as differentiated from the *Marte*case, presented ample, competent evidence supporting the conclusion of the trial court that the appellant was in fact operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

The conviction is affirmed.