alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for a Municipal Parking Lot Within the Area Bounded by 57th Avenue and Other Streets in the Borough of Queens. Fairyland Park, Inc., et al., Respondents; L. B. Oil Co., Inc., Appellant.

In a condemnation proceeding by the City of Hew York to acquire title to certain real property within the area bounded by 92nd Street, 57th Avenue, 94th Street and Horace Harding Expressway, in the Borough of Queens, City of Hew York, for the purpose of constructing a public parking place, the parties appeal as follows, as limited by their briefs, from a final decree of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 31, 1960 upon the decision of the court, after a nonjury trial: (1) The City of Hew York appeals from so much of the decree as fixed the damage awards for Damage Parcels Hos. 2, 3, 7 and 14; the appeal being based on the ground that such awards are excessive. (2) Claimant L. B. Oil Co., Inc., appeals from so much of the decree as fixed the damage for Damage Parcel Ho. 1; the appeal being based on the ground that such award is inadequate. Decree, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### Arikoli Mainakavika VOLAVOLA; Ne-wamai Bale Volavola; Ratu Orisi Lal-abalavu Volavola; Asinate Talei Vola-vola, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72491.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 16, 2007.

Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, John D. Williams, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arikoli Mainakavika Volavola, his wife, Newamai Bale Volavola, and their two children, Ratu Orisi Lalabalavu Volavola and Asinate Talei Volavola, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The lead petitioner’s testimony that he was threatened, verbally assaulted and spat upon does not compel the conclusion that he was persecuted. *See Halaim v. INS,*358 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2004) (“Persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); *Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.2003) (unfulfilled threats usually “constitute harassment rather than persecu*560tion”). The record also does not compel us to conclude that the petitioners have a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000) (general claims of ethnic tension in Fiji insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution). Consequently, substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision to deny asylum.

Because the petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

The petitioners also failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief because they did not show it was more likely than not that they would be tortured if they returned to Fiji. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 1000.230 What is the process for HUD review of IHPs and IHP amendments? HUD will conduct the IHP review in the following manner: ( a ) HUD will conduct a limited review of the IHP to ensure that its contents: ( 1 ) Comply with the requirements of section 102 of NAHASDA, which outlines the IHP submission requirements; however, the recipient may use either the HUD-estimated IHBG amount or the IHBG amount from their most recent compliant IHP;
( 2 ) Are consistent with information and data available to HUD;
( 3 ) Are not prohibited by or inconsistent with any provision of NAHASDA or other applicable law; and
( 4 ) Include the appropriate certifications.
( b ) If the IHP complies with the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this section, HUD will notify the recipient of IHP compliance within 60 days after receiving the IHP. If HUD fails to notify the recipient, the IHP shall be considered to be in compliance with the requirements of section 102 of NAHASDA and the IHP is approved.
( c ) If the submitted IHP does not comply with the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1), and (a)(3) of this section, HUD will notify the recipient of the determination of non-compliance. HUD will provide this notice no later than 60 days after receiving the IHP. This notice will set forth: ( 1 ) The reasons for noncompliance;
( 2 ) The modifications necessary for the IHP to meet the submission requirements; and
( 3 ) The date by which the revised IHP must be submitted.
( d ) If the recipient does not submit a revised IHP by the date indicated in the notice provided under paragraph (c) of this section, the IHP will be determined by HUD to be in non-compliance unless a waiver is requested and approved under section 101(b)(2) of NAHASDA. If the IHP is determined by HUD to be in non-compliance and no waiver is granted, the recipient may appeal this determination following the appeal process in § 1000.234.
( e ) ( 1 ) If the IHP does not contain the certifications identified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the recipient will be notified within 60 days of submission of the IHP that the plan is incomplete. The notification will include a date by which the certification must be submitted.
( 2 ) If the recipient has not complied or cannot comply with the certification requirements due to circumstances beyond the control of the Indian tribe(s), within the timeframe established, the recipient can request a waiver in accordance with section 101(b)(2) of NAHASDA. If the waiver is approved, the recipient is eligible to receive its grant in accordance with any conditions of the waiver.
[63 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 77 FR 71527, Dec. 3, 2012]
Return to Naval HistoricalCenter home page.Return to FrequentlyAsked Questions page. 

##### DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060

## 

## Origins of the U.S. Navy Flag

The Department of the Navy 
Seal
,created in 1957, was to serve as the main feature of the officialUnited States Navy flag, adopted two years later. The flag didnot pass through an evolutionary development as was the case withthe Navy seal. 
- Ships of the earliest period in the Nation's naval historywore a variety of flags, including the striped Grand Union, andthose bearing a pine tree or rattlesnake. However, these variousbanners may be considered steps in the genesis of the nationalensign, the "Stars and Stripes," rather than forebearsof a specific flag for the Navy.        Toward the end of the nineteenth century the Infantry Battalionflag (above left) was introduced for use by naval landing forces.This was a blue flag with a white diamond shaped device in thecenter and a blue foul anchor superimposed on the diamond. Formore than sixty years, the Infantry Battalion flag served as theunofficial Navy flag in drill formations and parades and at otherceremonies. An official Navy flag, truly representative of theNavy's operating forces at sea, was authorized by Presidentialorder 24 April 1959: 
  - The flag for the United States Navy is 4 feet 4 inches hoistby 5 feet 6 inches fly, of dark blue material, with yellow fringe,2 1/2 inches wide. In the center of the flag is a device 3 feet1 inch overall consisting of the inner pictorial position of theseal of the Department of the Navy (with the exception that acontinuation of the sea has been substituted for the land area),in its proper colors within a circular yellow rope edging, all2 feet 6 inches in diameter above a yellow scroll inscribed "UnitedStates Navy," in dark blue letters.          Unlike the national ensign, commission pennant, union jack,and admiral's broad pennant which fly from gaff, mast, or staffon board naval vessels, the flag of the United States Navy isreserved for display purposes and is carried by an honor guardon ceremonial occasions. 
    15 July 1996
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING, 09-0972 MHP 1

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

LOREN D. STEWART

Assistant Federal Public Defender

19th Floor Federal Building – Box 36106

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant Laereman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRANK LAEREMAN,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-09-0972 MHP

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONTINUING SENTENCING

Current Hearing Date: July 26, 2010

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

Proposed Hearing Date: August 23, 2010

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

The above-captioned case is currently on calendar at 10:00 a.m. on July 26, 2010, for

sentencing. Lead counsel for Mr. Laereman, Geoffrey Hansen, had a family emergency out-ofstate and is unavailable until next week. Because he has not been in the office, Mr. Hansen was

not able to schedule a meeting between Mr. Laereman and a psychologist. United States

Probation Officer Charlie Mabie is waiting for the report of the psychologist to complete his final

pre-sentence report. Accordingly, counsel for Mr. Laereman respectfully requests that the Court

vacate the July 26th hearing and add the matter to the Court’s calendar on August 23, 2010, at

9:00 a.m.

//

Case 3:09-cr-00972-MHP Document 29 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING, 09-0972 MHP 2

Undersigned defense counsel has confirmation from AUSA Tom Moore of his

availability for the proposed date, and also confirmed with Your Honor’s Courtroom Deputy that

the Court is available on the proposed hearing date and time. Accordingly, the parties jointly

request that the Court vacate the July 26, 2010, hearing date and re-set the matter for August 23,

2010, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

 July 15 , 2010 /s/ 

DATED TOM MOORE

Assistant United States Attorney

 July 15, 2010 /s/ 

DATED LOREN STEWART for GEOFFREY HANSEN

Attorneys for Frank Laereman

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For good cause shown, the status conference now scheduled for Monday, July 26, 2010 is

vacated. The matter shall be added to the Court’s calendar on Monday, August 23, 2010 at

9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED HON. MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Judge

30 7/22/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00972-MHP Document 29 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 2
Contact:


Bruce J.
Haber


(914)
235-5550, x. 12


bhaber@primedical.net














FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE








Emergent
Group Inc. Common Stock Begins Trading


on
NYSE Alternext US Exchange under Symbol ‘LZR’





SUN VALLEY, CA, November 10, 2008
– The common stock of Emergent Group Inc., a leading provider of mobile
medical lasers and surgical equipment, began trading this morning on the NYSE
Alternext US, formerly the American Stock Exchange, under the symbol
“LZR.”




“We’re
pleased that our stock is now trading on NYSE Alternext US,” said Emergent Group
Chairman and CEO Bruce J. Haber.  “Our new ticker symbol recognizes
the Company’s growing industry presence in providing medical lasers and other
surgical equipment and technician services to hospitals and physician groups
through our PRI Medical Technologies subsidiary.  Our listing is
symbolic of Emergent Group’s growth potential and our desire to share our future
success with an increasing number of investors in this important healthcare
sector.”




Approval
of Emergent Group’s new listing on the NYSE Alternext US is contingent upon the
Company being in compliance with all applicable listing standards on the date it
begins trading, and may be rescinded if the Company is not in compliance with
such standards.




Emergent
Group’s common shares were previously listed on the OTC Bulletin Board as
follows: (OTC BB: EMGP.OB).





About
Emergent Group Inc.


Emergent
Group Inc. (NYSE Alternext US: LZR), through its wholly owned subsidiary, PRI
Medical Technologies, Inc. (“PRI Medical”), provides mobile medical laser and
surgical equipment in 16 states on a per-procedure basis to hospitals,
outpatient surgery centers and physicians’ offices.  Surgical
equipment is provided to customers along with technical support personnel to
ensure that such equipment is operating correctly.  PRI Medical
currently offers its services in five states in the western United States and 11
states along the eastern seaboard.  For product and other information,
visit PRI Medical’s website, http://www.primedical.net.





Forward-Looking
Statements


Statements
in this news release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning
of Section 27A of the U.S. Securities Act of 1993 and Section 21E of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Such statements may involve various
risks and uncertainties, some of which may be discussed in the Company’s most
recent report on Form 10KSB and subsequently filed SEC reports.  There
is no assurance any forward-looking statements will prove accurate, as actual
results and future events could differ materially from those presently
anticipated.





# #
#
#### § 14.320 Settlement.

The applicant and agency counsel may agree on a proposed settlement of the award before final action on the application, either in connection with a settlement of the underlying proceeding, or after the underlying proceeding has been concluded, in accordance with the settlement procedure applicable to the underlying proceeding. If a prevailing party and agency counsel agree on a proposed settlement of an award before an application has been filed, the application shall be filed with the proposed settlement.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EX PARTE MOTION

No. C 08-4259 MMC

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643)

Assistant United States Attorney

MELANIE L. PROCTOR (CSBN 228971)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-6730

FAX: (415) 436-7169

Melanie.Proctor@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHARLOTTE YEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HILDA SOLIS, U.S. Secretary of Labor

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-4259 MMC

EX PARTE MOTION TO CHANGE TIME;

PROPOSED ORDER

At the status conference on February 22, 2010, the Court modified the case management

order by moving the pre-trial conference from April 13, 2010 to April 20, 2010. This adjustment

extended the deadlines for pre-trial preparations by one week. Under the modified schedule, the

parties are to meet and confer pursuant to Civ. L.R. 16-10(b)(5) no later than March 15, 2010. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-04259-MMC Document 188 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EX PARTE MOTION

No. C 08-4259 MMC 2

The parties’ cross motions for summary judgment are currently pending before the Court.

The Court’s ruling on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment may substantially narrow

the issues before the Court, if not moot the matter entirely. In addition, the parties are scheduled

to attend a settlement conference on March 26, 2010. Accordingly, pre-trial preparations may be

moot. 

As such, pursuant to Civ. L.R. 6-1(b) and 6-3(a), Defendant hereby respectfully requests to

extend the deadline to meet and confer to April 5, 2010. This extension shall have no effect on the

date of the pretrial conference, which shall be held on April 20, 2010.

Dated: March 8, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

MELANIE L. PROCTOR

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

PROPOSED ORDER

Having shown good cause, Defendant’s Motion is hereby GRANTED. The parties shall

meet and confer, pursuant to Civ. L.R. 16-10(b)(5), no later than April 5, 2010. The pretrial

conference shall be held on April 20, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04259-MMC Document 188 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2
Exbibit 3 STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

AND

TRADING AGREEMENT AND

ORDER NO. 8176

MODIFICATION NO.1

W1SVEST-CONNECTICUT, LLC

TRADING AGREEMENT AND ORDER MODIFICATION

In the matter of a Trading Agreement and Order between the Commissioner of Environmental

Protection ("Commissioner") and Wisvesl-Connecricut, LLC ("Wisvest").

WHEREAS, the Commissioner and Wisvest, having agreed to the tenns and conditions set

.forth in Trading Agreement and Order No. 8176 issued on May 31, 2000, do now, by mumaJ

agreement, modify said Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

1. Delete paragraph c.1.e. and substitute the following therefor:

Ozone Season Restrictions. The boiler is subject (0 Section 22a-174-22a of the

Regulations (" Ox Budget Program") in 1999 and every year thereafter. The boiler may

generate ozone season BERes to comply with Section 22a-174-22 of the Regulations in

accordance with paragraph C.l.a. and the following conditions and restrictions: 1)

BERCs shall only be generated by the boiler from May 1 through September 30 of a

given year, 2) BERCs shall only be used by other NOx Budget Program sources located

in Connecticut, 3) BERCs shall only be used to offset ozone season excess emissions, and

shall not be used for compliance during the non-Olone season; and 4) BERes generated

during a given year shall only be used during the'following ozone season, with the

exception of BERes generated during 1999, which may be used in the 2001 ozone

season. For example, BERCs generated during the 1999 ozone season may be used

during the 2001 ozone season. However, BERCs generated during the 2000 ozone season

may only be used during the 2001 ozone season. BERCs may be generated until May 1,

2003. BERCs are subject to all ERC requirements set forth in this Trading Agreement

and Order except for those requirements pertaining solely to non-ozone season ERCs and

as otherwise may be provided.

All other tenns and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order no, 8176 issued by the

Commissioner acting under Chapter 446c, Sections 22a-6, 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a-176, and 22a177 of the Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.

Date: ~iJaI,,\ (Primed nn Recycled Pipet l

79 Elm Slreel • H~ttford. CT 06106·5127

hllp:fldep u:ue.t!.us

AI/ Equu/ Opportllnir.v [mp/o.vet $ /Jel;talill~ Connnn'cul Ctlllsllll RUrJutu Managunen/; /980·2000 ._ l A A ~'--~'-./'-./'--./

Initials: CJ1J!::..",J3_""'. v"-- _
<

WISVEST-CONNECTICur, LLC 2 TRADING AGREEMENT AND ORDER

'0.8176 MODfFICATION NO. I

Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC hereby consents to the entry of this modification to the Trading

Agreement and Order without further notice.

Signature:

Type Name:

Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC

14"",=> :d ,. Thomas D. Kirk

Type Title: _--'G"e"'n"e."'a.,l'--CM"an"'a"'g"e"r _

Date: _...!'Ce.b.OlJl=..2.6'-:UlJl.L.~L_-ArEntered as a modification ofif.Order of the ~rnr;r of Env

numbered 8176 this /Z day of .. 200 .

CITY OF NEW HAYEN

LAND RECORDS

MAII.ED CERTIFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Certified Document No. 1625 037 a
§ 9b.6 Grounds for denial, revocation, or non-renewal of Department of State press building passes. In consultation with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Office of the Legal Adviser, the Director of the Office of Press Relations of the Department of State, may deny, revoke, or not renew the Department of State press building pass of any media correspondent or technician who: ( a ) Does not meet the qualifications stated in §§ 9b.2(a)(1), 9b.2(a)(2) and 9b.2(a)(3) or §§ 9b.3(a)(1), 9b.3(a)(2), 9b.3(a)(3) and 9b.3(b). (Upon denial, revocation, or non-renewal the correspondent or technician may not re-apply for a period of one year unless there are material changes in meeting the qualifications.) or,
( b ) Poses a risk of harm to the personal safety of Department of State or other Governmental personnel or to Government property; or
( c ) Engages or engaged in conduct which there are reasonable grounds to believe might violate federal or state law or Department of State regulations.
( d ) Has been convicted of a felony (or a crime in a foreign country that would be considered a felony if it were committed in the United States).
( e ) Fails to claim an approved authorization form for a State Department press building pass after notification by the Office of Press Relations following a period of three (3) months.
[49 FR 4465, Feb. 7, 1984, as amended at 54 FR 1687, Jan. 15, 1989]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvin Lewis, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered February 17, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review an order of the same court, dated September 21, 1976, which denied, without a hearing, defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of prejudicial delay. Case remanded to the County Court for a hearing and a new determination on defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment upon the ground there had been prejudicial delay, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The mere claim by the District Attorney that the delay was caused by unsuccessful efforts to locate the defendant furnished an insufficient basis to deny, without a hearing, the motion to dismiss the indictment upon the ground of prejudicial delay, as a potential for prejudice to the defendant’s rights appears and has been raised. This is especially true in narcotics cases with their concomitant on-going investigations (cf. *People v Charette,*57 AD2d 594; *People v Townsend,*38 AD2d 569). Martuscello, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of DXP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/David R. Little


David R. Little


President and Chief Executive Officer





November 8, 2010





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.