alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3093

JEWEL MARSHALL-MOSBY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

in CH0752080296-I-1.

ON MOTION

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Jewel Marshall-Mosby moves motion for reconsideration of the court's order

dismissing her petition for review for failure to file an appendix.

The court sua sponte grants Marshall-Mosby an extension of time to file her reply

brief and the appendix.

Accordingly,

The motion is granted. The mandate is recalled, the dismissal order is vacated,

and the petition is reinstated.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 2 9 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk U.R. 061401FSEALS FOR THE F ERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	David Ratowitz, Esq.

Jeffrey D. Klingman, Esq.	

JUL 2 9 2009

s20

	

JAN 1101SALY

Celt
§ 35.1215 Activities at initial and periodic inspection. ( a ) ( 1 ) During the initial and periodic inspections, an inspector acting on behalf of the designated party and trained in visual assessment for deteriorated paint surfaces in accordance with procedures established by HUD shall conduct a visual assessment of all painted surfaces in order to identify any deteriorated paint.
( 2 ) For tenant-based rental assistance provided under the HOME program, visual assessment shall be conducted as part of the initial and periodic inspections required under § 92.209(i) of this title.
( b ) The owner shall stabilize each deteriorated paint surface in accordance with §§ 35.1330(a) and (b) before commencement of assisted occupancy. If assisted occupancy has commenced prior to a periodic inspection, such paint stabilization must be completed within 30 days of notification of the owner of the results of the visual assessment. Paint stabilization is considered complete when clearance is achieved in accordance with § 35.1340. If the owner does not complete the hazard reduction required by this section, the dwelling unit is in violation of Housing Quality Standards (HQS) until the hazard reduction is completed or the unit is no longer covered by this subpart because the unit is no longer under a housing assistance payment (HAP) contract with the housing agency. For the unit subsequently to come under a HAP contract with the housing agency for occupancy by a family with a child under age 6, paint stabilization must be completed, including clearance being achieved in accordance with § 35.1340.
( c ) The owner shall provide a notice to occupants in accordance with § 35.125(b)(1) and (c) describing the results of the clearance examination.
( d ) The designated party may grant the owner an extension of time to complete paint stabilization and clearance for reasonable cause, but such an extension shall not extend beyond 90 days after the date of notification to the owner of the results of the visual assessment.
[64 FR 50216, Sept. 15, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 34273, June 21, 2004; 82 FR 4170, Jan. 13, 2017]
### **CHAPTER 31—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES**

Sec.
3101.
Records management by agency heads; general duties.
3102.
Establishment of program of management.
3103.
Transfer of records to records centers.
3104.
Certifications and determinations on transferred records.
3105.
Safeguards.
3106.
Unlawful removal, destruction of records.
3107.
Authority of Comptroller General.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–575, §3(b), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2727, substituted "Transfer of records to records centers" for "Storage, processing, and servicing of records" in item 3103.
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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK FAHY, 

Plaintiff,

    v.

ORPHEOS TARBOX, et al.,

Defendants.                                                                      /

No. C 09-1420 MMC

ORDER REFERRING TO MAGISTRATEJUDGE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TOCOMPEL

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, plaintiff’s motion “for an Order to Compell [sic]

Responses to Interrogatories and to Provide Initial Disclosure Discovery from Defendant

Alec Steiner,” filed June 17, 2010, and all further discovery matters, are hereby

REFERRED to a Magistrate Judge to be heard and considered at the convenience of the

assigned Magistrate Judge’s calendar.

Counsel will be advised of the date, time and place of the next appearance, if any,

by notice from the assigned Magistrate Judge’s chambers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  June 21, 2010                                                       MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01420-MMC   Document 119   Filed 06/21/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T23:20:41-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report
of GlobalOptions Group, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey O. Nyweide, Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:





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.





March
      16, 2010
                    /s/ Jeffrey O. NyweideName:
                    Jeffrey
      O. NyweideTitle:
                    Chief
      Financial Officer, Executive Vice
                      President
      – Corporate Development, and
                      Secretary
                      (Principal
      Financial Officer and
                      Principal
      Accounting
Officer)
### §§1381 to 1383. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §705(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792

Section 1381, Pub. L. 86–649, title III, §301, July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 507, related to forfeiture of bond or deposit by timber purchaser or permittee.

Section 1382, Pub. L. 86–649, title III, §302, July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 507, related to maintenance of roads and trails under jurisdiction of Bureau of Land Management and deposit of funds to insure maintenance.

Section 1383, Pub. L. 86–649, title III, §303, July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 508, related to Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §705(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792, provided that the repeal made by section 705(a) is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
### Conference Call with Tribal Environmental Professionals

April 29 , 2009

Meeting Note to the Docket

Discussion Topics

On April 29 , 2009 , representatives from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

participated in a meeting to update interested members from the National Tribal Air

Association (NTAA) o n the status of the rule titled: “Review of New Sources and

Modifications in Indian Country.” The attendees discussed the :

• Proposed schedule for finalizing the rule
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,**




**As
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Global Matrechs, Inc.
      (the “Registrant”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned President, Chief Executive Officer, and acting Chief Financial
      Officer of the Registrant, certifies, to his best knowledge and belief, 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, as amended; and




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






Date: August
                ___, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Michael
                SheppardName:
                  Michael SheppardTitle:
                  President, CEO and acting CFO
Case 3:09-cv-00444-TEH Document 64 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

03/29/10

Case 3:09-cv-00444-TEH Document 64 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 2
September 18, 2015

Mr. Scott Slepecki

232 Long Ridge Drive

Corapolis , PA 15108

Dear Mr. Slepecki :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2717, on June 16, 2015

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the fo llowing:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or ar guments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Div ision

Enclosure s34
### §3309. Preservation of claims of Government until settled in Government Accountability Office; disposal authorized upon written approval of Comptroller General

Records pertaining to claims and demands by or against the Government of the United States or to accounts in which the Government of the United States is concerned, either as debtor or creditor, may not be disposed of by the head of an agency under authorization granted under this chapter, until the claims, demands, and accounts have been settled and adjusted in the Government Accountability Office, except upon the written approval of the Comptroller General of the United States.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1301; Pub. L. 91–287, §2(b), June 23, 1970, 84 Stat. 321; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §374 (July 7, 1943, ch. 192, §9, 57 Stat. 382).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office" in section catchline and text.

1970—Pub. L. 91–287 substituted "under this chapter" for "under sections 3306–3308 of this title".
### §629. Delivery of notices required by State law; right to hearing, appeal, etc.

All notices required by the irrigation district laws mentioned in this chapter shall, as soon as such notices are issued, be delivered to the officer designated by the Secretary of the Interior of the proper land office in cases where unpatented lands are affected thereby, and to the entryman whose unpatented lands are included therein, and the United States and such entryman shall be given the same rights to be heard by petition, answer, remonstrance, appeal, or otherwise as are given to persons holding lands in private ownership, and all entrymen shall be given the same rights of redemption as are given to the owners of lands held in private ownership.

(Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 319, §7, 39 Stat. 509; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

"Officer designated by the Secretary of the Interior" substituted for "register" on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946, which abolished all registers of district land offices and transferred functions of register of district land office to Secretary of the Interior. See section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946, set out as a note under section 1 of this title. Previously, reference to "receiver" was changed to "register" by acts Oct. 28, 1921 and Mar. 3, 1925.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1437

___________ Walter B. Farver, Sr., * * Appellant, * * v. * * M. Capel, Assistant Warden, Pine * Bluff Work Complex, Arkansas * Department of Correction; R. Raley, * Appeal from the United States Major, Pine Bluff Work Complex, * District Court for the Arkansas Department of Correction; * Eastern District of Arkansas. R. Dobbs, Warden, Pine Bluff Work * [UNPUBLISHED] Complex, Arkansas Department of * Correction; Williams, Lieutenant, * Pine Bluff Work Complex, Arkansas * Department of Corrections; Walls, * Sergeant, Pine Bluff Work Complex, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * A.D. Smith, CO-I, Pine Bluff Work * Complex, Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 1999 Filed: April 12, 1999

___________1 The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Walter B. Farver, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court’s 1 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and for failure to prosecute. Having reviewedthe record, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Farver’s lawsuitwithout prejudice. See Brown v. Toombs , 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 88 (1998). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTI AL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268 

### ( d 

### )( 2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Gregory M. Gottschlich a nd Donald L. McNeil, Petitioners,

v.

Strimpfel Custom Homes, Inc. ; Joseph A. Reeve; Jerry L. Richardson; Coastal Surveyi ng, Co., Inc.; Thomas N. Dye; Jan H. Dye; Ken Oliver ; The Byrne Corporation, d/b/a Dunes Marketing Group; Laurich & Deeb, P.A.; Robert M. Deeb, Jr. a nd Charles H. Wiseman, Defendants,

of whom Ken Oliver, The Byrne Corporation d/b/a Dunes Marketing Group, Laur ich & Deeb, P. A., Robert M. Deeb, Jr. and Charles H. Wiseman are, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000375

ON WRI T OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Beaufort County The Honorable Marvin H. Dukes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-013 Heard January 14, 2015 – Filed March 25, 2015DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., of Carpenter Appeals & Trial Support, LLC, of Columbia, for Petitioners.

Susan Taylor Wall and Henry Wilkins Frampton, both of McNair Law Firm, PA, of Ch arleston, Max G. Mahaffee, of Grimball & Cabaniss, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to revi ew the decision of the Court of Appeals in Gottschlich v. Strimpfel Custom Homes, Inc. , Op. No. 2012-UP-676 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Dec. 19, 2012). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,

concur.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

FRANK FAHY,

Plaintiff,

    v.

ORPHEOS TARBOX, et al.,

Defendants                                                                      /

No. C-09-1420 MMC

ORDER TO PRO TEM REPORTER TOPRODUCE TRANSCRIPT

On September 18, 2009, a settlement conference was held in the above-entitled action,

at which time certain agreements were placed on the record.  Production of a transcript of the

reported portion of the conference is necessary for the resolution of a pending motion.

Accordingly, pro tem court reporter Christine Triska is directed to prepare the transcript

of this proceeding on the following basis:

(     )  Ordinary (within 30 days @ $3.65 per page).

(     )  14-Day (within 14 days @ $4.25 per page).

( X )  Expedited (within 7 days @ $4.85 per page).

(     )  Daily (overnight @ $6.05 per page).

Therefore, the Clerk is directed to pay said reporter the cost of preparing the transcript at

the rate indicated above, and in accordance with the requirements of the Judicial Conference of

the United States, as set forth in the Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2010                                                        MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

cc:  Court Reporter Supervisor and Pro Tem Reporter

Case 3:09-cv-01420-MMC   Document 91   Filed 01/29/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T23:20:45-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
§ 221.320 Certificate or statement of condition. ( a ) At the time of the assignment of the mortgage or conveyance of the property to the Commissioner, the mortgagee shall, as of the date of the filing for record of the deed or assignment, ( 1 ) Certify that the conditions of § 221.305(a) have been met; or
( 2 ) Submit a statement describing any such damage that may still exist.
( b ) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the mortgagee's certificate or its statement as to damage shall be accepted by the Commissioner as establishing the condition of the family unit and the common areas and facilities including restricted common areas and facilities designated for the particular unit.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00286-CR

IN RE JUSTIN S. MATTHEWS

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Justin S. Matthews’s petition for writ of mandamus was filed on September 2, 2016. 

The Court requests a response from the other parties to the proceeding. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(b). Any response shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court no later than 14 days 

from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Response requested

Order issued and filed September 14, 2016
#### § 578.67 Publication of application.

HUD will publish the application to be designated an HPC through the HUD Web site, for public comment as to whether the Continuum seeking designation as an HPC meets the standards for being one.
J-A14004-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

TRACEY C. CARTER, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TROY L. CARTER,

Appellant No. 3817 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered November 23, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Domestic Relations at No(s): 

009807300

PACSES No. 363004162

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SHOGAN, J.

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2017

Because I would conclude that the trial court’s findings are not 

sufficiently supported by the evidence presented, I respectfully dissent. For 

example, the court’s determination that the evidence supported a finding 

that Troy II could not work at any profitable employment is unreasonable in 

light of the fact that he was apparently successful in taking computer 

classes. Also, the fact that Troy II needs assistance in traveling and would 

only consider an office job is not enough to support the court’s decision. 

Additionally, Mother’s testimony about Troy II’s physical problems was not 

supported by any expert testimony or report.1 Therefore, I would conclude 

____________________________________________

1 Moreover, the documentary evidence submitted at the master’s hearing, 

namely, the psychiatric reports, were not authenticated and should not have 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A14004-17

- 2 -

that the court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by 

determining that Mother/Troy II carried their burden of rebutting the 

presumption of non-support. Furthermore, I note that no evidence was 

presented by Mother/Troy II that was directed at proving the availability of 

employment at a supporting wage. See Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d 403, 409 

(Pa. Super. 2008) (stating “the test is whether the child is physically and 

mentally able to engage in profitable employment and whether employment 

is available to that child at a supporting wage”). Accordingly, I must 

dissent. 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

been allowed into the record. However, since no objection was raised at the 

time, we cannot rely on this error.