alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 306.3 Definitions.

Unless the context requires otherwise, in this part:

*Applicant* means a person who has submitted a completed application required for consideration of eligibility for Peace Corps Volunteer service. “Applicant” may also mean a person who alleges that the actions of agency personnel precluded them from submitting such an application or any other information reasonably required by the appropriate personnel as necessary for a determination of the individual's eligibility for Volunteer service.

*Complainant* means an aggrieved applicant, trainee, or volunteer who believes they have been subject to prohibited discrimination and files a formal complaint.

*Complaint* means a written statement signed by a Complainant alleging prohibited discrimination and submitted to the OCRD Director, as described in § 306.9(a).

*Counselor* means an official designated by the OCRD Director to perform an informal inquiry focused on possible resolution as detailed in this Part.

*Director* means the Director of the Peace Corps.

*File(d) Date* means the date a Complaint is received by the appropriate agency official.

*Final Agency Decision (FAD)* means the Peace Corps' final written determination on a complaint.

*OCRD Director* means the Director of the Peace Corps' Office of Civil Rights and Diversity.

*Prohibited discrimination* means discrimination (including harassment) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or over), disability, or other bases provided for in applicable statutes, regulations or the Peace Corps Manual, or history of participation in the Peace Corps discrimination complaint process.

*Trainee* means a person who has accepted an invitation issued by the Peace Corps and has registered for Peace Corps staging.

*Volunteer* means a person who has taken the oath of service and been sworn in for Peace Corps service, whether or not this person is still in Peace Corps service.
**EXHIBIT      32.2 **

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                                  |                                                              |                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Dated                this 13th day of November, 2006. | By:                                                     | /s/                Jibin Zhang |
|                                                  | Jibin                Zhang Chief                Financial Officer |

----
#### § 241.525 Refund of fees.

If the amount of the commitment issued or an increase in loan prior to endorsement is less than the amount applied for, the Commissioner shall refund the excess amount of the application and commitment fees submitted by the applicant. If an application is rejected before it is assigned for processing, or in such other instances as the Commissioner may determine, the entire application and commitment fees or any portion thereof may be returned to the applicant. Commitment, inspection, and reopening fees may be refunded, in whole or in part if it is determined by the Commissioner that the installation of energy conserving improvements for the project has been prevented because of condemnation proceedings or other legal action taken by a governmental body or public agency, or in such other instances as the Commissioner may determine.
#### In the Matter of Gladys H. Cone, Respondent, against Town of Ontario et al., Appellants.

Motion for reargument denied; motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Williams, P, J., Bastow, Goldman, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES−OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of RoomLinX, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10−QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Wasik,
Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES−OXLEY Act of 2002,
that:
 1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operation of
the Company.
 
 Date:
              7/1/08By:
              /s/ Michael S.
      WasikMichael
      S. WasikChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 16

- 00090

- CR

SCOTT EVERETT SHINE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Franklin County, Texas

Trial Court No. F

- 9065

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Scott Ever e tt Shine appeals from three conviction of engaging in organized criminal

activity with the underlying offense of delivery of a controlled substance. Shine has filed a single

brief in which he raises an issue common to each of his appeals. 1 He argues that the trial court

erred in limiting his cross

- examination of one of the State’s law enforcement witnesses.

We addressed this issue in detail in our opinion of this date on Shine’s appeal in cause

number 06

- 16

- 00088

- CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not

been shown in this case.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 22, 2016

Date Decided: October 18 , 2016

Do Not Publish

1 Shine likewise appeals from his convictions in cause numbers 06

- 16

- 00088

- CR and 06

- 16

- 00089

- CR.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50029

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL LEONEL FOURNIER-ROBLES, also known as Raul Leonel Fournier,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-1563-3

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Raul Leonel Fournier-Robles has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Fournier-Robles has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

December 10, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50029 Document: 00515231106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2019
No. 19-50029

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

 Case: 19-50029 Document: 00515231106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2019
Exhibit 32.0

Section 1350 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ John C. RomanJohn C. RomanPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Lee R. SchlesingerLee R. SchlesingerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


March 14, 2011
#### State Division of Human Rights, Respondent, v County of Oswego et al., Petitioners.

Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Human Rights Appeal Board for further proceedings; cross motion for order of enforcement denied. Memorandum: The record supports the finding of the Division of Human Rights that petitioner was guilty of an act of unlawful discrimination against complainant because of his age. The order must be modified, however, by striking subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the second ordering paragraph. Although public employers are not excluded from the requirements of the Human Rights Law, the commissioner did not have the power to direct the petitioner to offer complainant the next available vacant position or to award back pay from June 29, 1974 until the offer of employment was accepted or rejected *(City of Schenectady v State Div. of Human Rights,*37 NY2d 421, 430; see, also, *Matter of New York City Dept. of Personnel v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*56 AD2d 795, mod 58 AD2d 787). The matter is remitted to the Human Rights Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith to effectuate the purposes of the Human Rights Law (see Executive Law, § 297, subd 4, par c). (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, § 298.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Dillon, JJ.
#### §§ 96.21-96.22 [Reserved]
§ 92.63 Arrangement of papers. Unless special instructions to the contrary are received, the various papers comprising the completed record of the depositions should usually be arranged in the following order from bottom to top: ( a ) Commission to take depositions (or notice of taking depositions), with interrogatories, exhibits, and other supporting documents fastened thereto.
( b ) Statement of fees charged, if one is prepared on a separate sheet.
( c ) Record of the responses of the various witnesses, including any exhibits the witnesses may submit.
( d ) Closing certificate.
All of these papers should be fastened together with ribbon, the ends of which should be secured beneath the notarizing officer's seal affixed to the closing certificate. [22 FR 10858, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 60 FR 51723, Oct. 3, 1995]
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

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT DISMISSING CLAIM FOR ALLEGED MISUSE OF EDUCATION FUND

RESOURCES - Case No. C 09-0404 WHA (MEJ) Page 1

McCARTHY, JOHNSON & MILLER

Law Corporation

DIANE SIDD-CHAMPION (SBN 78140)

RAPHAEL SHANNON (SBN 83850)

ANA PEREZ HALLMON (SBN 253309)

595 Market Street, Suite 2200

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 882-2992

Facsimile: (415) 882-2999

E-mail: dsidd-champion@mjmlaw.us

 

Attorneys for Defendants

 SAL ROSSELLI, JOHN BORSOS, LAURA KURRE, 

 RALPH CORNEJO, WILL CLAYTON, and

 JOHN VELLARDITA in their capacities as Trustees or

 former Trustees of the SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West 

 and Joint Employer Education Fund, and MARY RUTH GROSS

 in her capacity as Executive Director of the SEIU United Healthcare 

 Workers-West and Joint Employer Education Fund

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,

et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAL ROSSELLI, et al.

Defendants.

___________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 09-0404 WHA (MEJ)

[PROPOSED] 

JUDGMENT DISMISSING CLAIM

FOR ALLEGED MISUSE OF

EDUCATION FUND RESOURCES

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 703 Filed 07/06/10 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

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT DISMISSING CLAIM FOR ALLEGED MISUSE OF EDUCATION FUND

RESOURCES - Case No. C 09-0404 WHA (MEJ) Page 2

Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Sal Rosselli, John Borsos, Laura Kurre, Ralph Cornejo,

Will Clayton, John Vellardita and Mary Ruth Gross (“Education Fund Defendants”) and against

Plaintiffs Service Employees International Union, David Regan, Eliseo Medina, and Rebecca Collins

on the claim that the Education Fund Defendants misused resources of the SEIU United Healthcare

Workers-West and Joint Employer Education Fund (“Education Fund”) as alleged by Plaintiffs in

paragraphs 95 and 139 of the Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:____________________, 2010 _____________________________________

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

July 6

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 703 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
10.28

    Equity
Transfer Agreement

    Of

    Jilin
Province Yongxin Chain Drugstore Ltd.

    


    (English
Translation)

    


    Party A:
Changchun Yongxin Dirui Medical Co., Ltd.

    Party B:
LIU, Yongkui

    


    Party A,
who is holding an amount of RMB 2,500,000 equity interest or 100% of the
registered capital of Jilin Province Yongxin Chain Drugstore Ltd., hereby agrees
to transfer capital contribution of RMB 625,000 to Party B.

      

    Hereby
agreed.

      


    Signatures

    


    Party A:
Changchun Yongxin Dirui Medical Co., Ltd. (Seal)

    Party B:
/s/ LIU, Yongkui

      


    Jilin
Province Yongxin Chain Drugstore Ltd. (Seal)

      


    Date: May
17, 2010
### SUBCHAPTER II—MEASURES UPSTREAM FROM IMPERIAL DAM
#### § 34.17 Non-waiver of rights by payments.

So long as there are no statutory or contractual provisions to the contrary, no employee payment (of all or a portion of a debt) collected under this subpart will be interpreted as a waiver of any rights that the employee may have under 5 U.S.C. 5514.
1947 Galileo Ct., Suite 103 • Davis, California95618 July 23,2014 Gerardo C. 

### Rios Chief, AirPermits Office (Air-3) EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 SUBJECT: 40 CFRPart 51, Appendix S Applicability

DearMr. Rios: (530) 757-3650 • (800) 287-3650 • Fax (530) 757-3670

This letter is in response to your request for additional information regarding compliance with the federal new source review (NSR) requirements for fine particulate matter (PM2 .5

), in the interim, while requirements consistent with this national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) are incorporated into our NSR program. In particular, you have asked us to ackoowledge the applicability of40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) part 51, Appendix S to new and modified major sources during the period prior to EPA's approval of a NSR program applicable to our PM2.s non-attainment area. As you are aware, a portion ofthe Yolo-Solano Air Quality ManagementDistrict ("the District") is currently classified as a moderate nonattainment area under the 2006 PM2 

### .s NAAQS. Thus, a revisedNSRprogram submittal was due to EPAby December 14, 2012. However, in 2013 EPA determined that the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA), including the District, achieved the PM25 NAAQS. The air districts of the SFNA subsequently submitted a ReDesignation Request and maintena..11ce pla..11 as required by C1ea.l1 Air Act Section 107. We therefore ask that EPA take action to update our PM2 .5 attainment designation in lieu of the District enacting a major source PM2.5NSRrule. Until EPA takes a final action to approve our revised NSR program, or approves our new attainment designation and maintenance plan, we ackoowledge that the applicable requirements of40 CFR part 51, Appendix S apply to any new major source or major modification ofa major source, as defined therein, for sources emitting direct PM2

### .s, or sulfur oxides (SO,) or nitrogen oxides (NOx) as PM2.s precursors.Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact Paul Hensleighofmy staffat (530) 757-3665. Sincerely,

MatEhrhardt, P.E. AirPollution Control Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.78 Energy conservation.

Construction, mechanical equipment, and energy and metering selections shall provide cost effective energy conservation in accordance with standards established by the Commissioner.
### **CHAPTER 44—OREGON AND CALIFORNIA RAILROAD AND COOS BAY WAGON ROAD GRANT LANDS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—ADMINISTRATION

Sec.
2601.
Conservation management by Department of the Interior; permanent forest production; sale of timber; subdivision.
2602.
Cooperative agreements with other agencies or private owners for coordinated administration.
2603.
Leasing of lands for grazing; disposition of moneys; rules and regulations covering grazing lands.
2604.
Rules and regulations generally; consultation and agreements with other agencies regarding fire regulations.
2605.
Oregon and California land-grant fund; annual distribution of moneys.
2606.
Oregon and California Railroad revested lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road reconveyed lands.
2607.
Protection of Oregon and California Railroad grant lands.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—DISPOSITION OF FUNDS

2621.
Coos Bay Wagon Road grant fund; annual payments; appraisal and assessment of land and timber; computation of payments.
2622.
Appraisal of land and timber; manner and frequency; computation of amounts upon basis of last appraisement; deduction of appraisement expenses.
2623.
Additional sum from surplus for meeting payments due from insufficient annual receipts; maximum aggregate of decennial payments; covering of excess receipts into general fund of Treasury.
2624.
Amount available for administration of Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands under subchapter I; covering of unused receipts into general fund of Treasury.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION

2631.
Unselected and unpatented odd-numbered sections as revested grant lands; administration as national-forest lands; revenues; prohibition against disposition or exchange.
2632.
Exchange of jurisdiction between Secretaries; conditions; publication in Federal Register.
2633.
Designation of national-forest areas within counties; disposition of revenues; approval by court.
2634.
Appropriations to carry out sections 2632 and 2633.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOAD ALOWDI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ABLE BUILDING SERVICES d/b/a ABM,

MANILO GARCIA, and ROBERT

ESQUADA,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01258 WHA

ORDER DENYING AMENDMENT

TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Pursuant to the case management order entered in this matter, the deadline to amend the

pleadings was September 30, 2009. That deadline is now long since passed and trial is

scheduled to begin on July 12, 2010. Now the parties have stipulated to seek leave to amend

the case management order to permit plaintiff to file a fourth amended complaint. They also

seek to adjust the trial date and other pretrial deadlines. This would be a disruption to the

orderly scheduling of the case. Rule 16(b)(4) provides that leave to amend following entry of

the case management order may be granted only upon a showing of “good cause” for the delay

and with the judge’s consent. This good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of

the party seeking the amendment.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats, 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir.

2000). The parties’ stipulation does not provide a reason that the amendment should be 

Case 3:09-cv-01258-WHA Document 30 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

allowed except for the agreement of the parties. This is insufficient. Lack of good cause

shown, the request to amend is DENIED without prejudice to trying again.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01258-WHA Document 30 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LEROY BEVANS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1269

[February 28, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Paul L. Backman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 97-

017753CF10A.

Leroy Bevans, Milton, pro se.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. 

Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.