alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(April 20, 2007)

#### In the Matter of Wellington Sharpe et al., Appellants, v Mathieu Eugene, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 669]

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate an independent nominating petition nominating Mathieu Eugene as a candidate in a special election to be held on April 24, 2007 for the public office of Member of the New York City Council, 40th Council District, the appeal is from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated April 12, 2007, which granted the application of Mathieu Eugene to dismiss the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We affirm the final order dismissing the proceeding, although we do so on a ground different from that relied upon by the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have reached the merits of the petitioners’ challenge to Mathieu Eugene’s independent nominating petition. Since that challenge is one that may be determined as a matter of law, for purposes of judicial economy, we have considered the petitioners’ challenge and find it to be without merit. Public Officers Law § 30 addresses the creation of vacancies in public office. Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, Public Officers Law § 30 (1) (h) does not preclude Eugene from seeking office in the special election to be held on April 24, 2007. The authority upon which the petitioners rely is inapposite, as it addresses a separate subsection of Public Officers Law § 30 *(see Matter of Alamo v Strohm,*153 AD2d 542 [1989], *affd*74 NY2d 801 [1989]). Fisher, J.P, Dillon, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
§ 1699.170 Compliance procedure. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by the agency.
( b ) The agency shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established in 29 CFR part 1613 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) Responsibility for implementation and operation of this section shall be vested in the Associate Director for Administration.
( d ) The agency shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The agency may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the agency receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate government entity.
( f ) The agency shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151 through 4157), or section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 792), is not readily accessible and usable to handicapped persons.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusion of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy of each violation found; and
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 1699.170(g). The agency may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the Director of Selective Service.
( j ) The agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the agency determines that it needs additional information from the complainant, it shall have 60 days from the date it receives the additional information to make its determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The agency may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated.
B ELOW IS THE COMMENT YOU SELECTED TO DISPLAY .

C OMMENT 1 FOR

S TATUS R EPORT ON THE S TATE S TRATEGY FOR C ALIFORNIA ' S 2007 S TATE I MPLEMENTATION P LAN ( SIPREV 09) - N ON -R EG . First Name: Leisa Last Name: Brug Email Address: leisa.brug@asm.ca.gov Phone Number: Affiliation: Subject: Temporary Suspension of CARB Diesel Truck Regulations Comment: 

### April 1, 2009 Dear CARB Members, The attached February 17, 2009 letter from Assembly men Chuck DeVore and Mike Villines and Senator Lou Correa of the California State Legislature was delivered to CARB Headquarter s on February 18, 2009. The letter provides scientific, legal, a nd economic justifications for the “Temporary Suspension of CAR B On-Road and Off-Road Diesel Truck Regulations.” The letter is highly relevant to 2007 State Strategy for the California State Imp lementation Plan. Sincerely yours, Leisa Brug Kline, Chief Of Staff Assemblyman Chuck DeVore California's 70th Assembly District District Office - (949) 863-7070 Capitol Office - (916) 319-2070 leisa.brug@asm.ca.gov
Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/siprev09/1-carb_de vore_villines_correa_letter_regarding_diesel_regs_0 21709.pdf Original File Name: CARB DeVore Villines Correa Let ter Regarding Diesel Regs 021709.pdf Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-04-01 11: 45:07

If you have any questions or comments please contac t COTB at (916) 322-5594.
Board Comments Home C OMMENT L OG D ISPLAY

The Board is one of six boards, departments, and offices under the umbrella of the California Environmental Protect ion Agency. Cal/EPA | ARB | CIWMB | DPR | DTSC | OEHHA | SWRCB 

### http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccomdisp.php?lis tname=siprev09...

1 of 1 8/18/2009 10:48 AM
#### In re WALLACE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 13, 1903.)

In the matter of the final judicial settlement of Patrick F. Wallace, as executor, etc., of Michael Killeen, deceased.

No opinion. Decree of Surrogate’s Court affirmed, with costs.
### **CHAPTER 1—ORGANIZATION**

Sec.
101.
Executive departments.
102.
Military departments.
103.
Government corporation.
104.
Independent establishment.
105.
Executive agency.
### §2748. Scope of authority to carry out plant projects

In carrying out programs necessary for national security, the authority of the Secretary of Energy to carry out plant projects includes authority for maintenance, restoration, planning, construction, acquisition, modification of facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in prior years, and land acquisition related thereto.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLVII, §4708, formerly div. C, title XXXVI, §3627, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2760; renumbered div. D, title XLVII, §4708, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(j)(2)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1781.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 7386g of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 108–136.
### §5513. Withholding pay; credit disallowed or charge raised for payment

When the Government Accountability Office, on a statement of the account of a disbursing or certifying official of the United States, disallows credit or raises a charge for a payment to an individual in or under an Executive agency otherwise entitled to pay, the pay of the payee shall be withheld in whole or in part until full reimbursement is made under regulations prescribed by the head of the Executive agency from which the payee is entitled to receive pay. This section does not repeal or modify existing statutes relating to the collection of the indebtedness of an accountable, certifying, or disbursing official.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 477; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 46b. | May 26, 1936, ch. 452, 49 Stat. 1374.Aug. 3, 1950, ch. 515, 64 Stat. 393. |

Statutes at Large

Aug. 3, 1950, ch. 515, 64 Stat. 393.

The words "On and after May 26, 1936" are omitted as executed. The word "official" is substituted for "officer" and "officers" as the definition of "officer" in section 2104 excludes a member of a uniformed service. The words "from the United States or from an agency or instrumentality thereof" are omitted as unnecessary.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office".
### **CHAPTER 97—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY**

Sec.
9701.
Establishment of human resources management system.
**Exhibit 21**

**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

CommunityONE Bank, National Association - 

National banking association headquartered in the State of North Carolina 

First National Investor Services, Inc. - 

A North Carolina corporation and operating subsidiary 

Premier Investment Services, Inc. – 

A North Carolina corporation and operating subsidiary 

Dover Mortgage Company – 

A North Carolina corporation and operating subsidiary 

FNB United Statutory Trust I – 

A Connecticut statutory business trust 

FNB United Statutory Trust II – 

A Delaware statutory business trust 

Catawba Valley Capital Trust II – 

A Delaware statutory business trust
#### § 815.1 Scope and purpose.

This part sets forth performance standards required for coal exploration which substantially disturbs the natural land surface. At the discretion of the regulatory authority, coal exploration operations may be further required to comply with the applicable standards of 30 CFR parts 816 through 828.
§ 1656.11 Job performance standards and sanctions. ( a ) *Standards of Performance.* An ASW is responsible for adhering to the standards of conduct, attitude, appearance and performance demanded by the employer of his other employees in similar jobs. If there are no other employees, the standards shall conform to those that are reasonable and customary in a similar job.
( b ) *Failure to Perform.* An ASW will be deemed to have failed to perform satisfactorily whenever: ( 1 ) He refuses to comply with an order of the Director issued under this part;
( 2 ) He refuses employment by an approved employer who agrees to hire him;
( 3 ) His employer terminates the ASW's employment because his conduct, attitude, appearance or performance violates reasonable employer standards; or
( 4 ) He quits or leaves his job without reasonable justification, and has not submitted an appeal of his job assignment to the District Appeal Board.
( c ) *Sanctions for ASW's Failure to Perform.* ( 1 ) The sanctions for failure to meet his Alternative Service obligation are job reassignment, loss of creditable time during such period and referral to the Department of Justice for failure to comply with the Military Selective Service Act.
( 2 ) Prior to invoking any of the sanctions discussed herein, the ASO will conduct a review as prescribed in § 1656.17 of all allegations that an ASW has failed to perform pursuant to any of the provisions of § 1656.11(b).
[48 FR 16676, Apr. 19, 1983, as amended at 69 FR 20544, Apr. 16, 2004]
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HONGXIN LIU; SHENGYANG LI,

Pe t i tione rs, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-71424 Age n c y Nos. A206-659-444

A206-659-445 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July

6, 2020 ** B e fore : SC HR OEDER , HAW KINS, and GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s . Pe titione rs Hongxin Liu a nd She ny ang Li pe tition for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l ’ s (B IA) orde r dism issing the im m igrat ion judge ’ s (IJ’ s ) de nia l of the ir a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the 

# FIL ED JUL 8 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C onve ntion Against Torture(C AT). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252,

and we de ny the pe tition. The IJ a nd B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t Pe titione rs fa ile d

to e sta blish e ligibility for a sy lum

or withholding, be c a

use substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion. Pe titione rs ofte n c ontra dic te d

e a c h othe r on e ve nts tha t we re c e nt

ra l to the ir a

pplic at ions for a sy l um

and withholding. For e xam ple , Liu a nd Li te stifie d inc onsiste ntly a b out whe the r Li wa s at the ir hom e whe n Liu wa s re m ove d by sta te offic ia ls, a

nd a b o ut whe the r the y

visite d the ir y oung son a fte r the y

we nt into hiding. The

re c ord the re fore doe s not c om pe l a finding tha

t Pe titione rs a

re c re dible . The IJ a lso c onc lude d tha t Pe titione rs we re not e ligiblefor re l ie f unde r C AT, and Pe titione rs ha

ve not c ha lle n ge d tha

t de te rm ination. Pe titione rs ha ve the re fore wa ive d the ir C AT c la im . Se e C ruz v . Int’l C

olle c t ion C

orp. , 673 F.3d 991, 998 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ W e re v i e w only issue s whic h a

re argue d spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly in a pa rty ' s ope ning brie f.” (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

2
##### 



AMENDMENT TO CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE
  Whereas, the Note was originally due to mature on July 1, 2007
(the Maturity Date); andWhereas,Maker has made no payments under the Note to date; andWhereas,Maker and the Holder desire to further extend the Maturity Date;Now Therefore,for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Note as follows:
 1.
    
    The Maturity Date of the Note shall be further extended until January 1, 2009.2.
    
    To effectuate the foregoing:Section 1 (d) of the Note shall be replaced in its entirety by the following:
 The termMaturity shall mean the date on which this Note shall be due and
payable in full, which date shall be January 1, 2009.
 Section 2 of the Note shall be replaced in its entirety by the following:
 Payment Terms. This Loan shall be effective commencing on the
effective date and continuing until Maturity. The Maker shall be obligated to make
one payment of all outstanding principal and interest due thereon at Maturity.
Unless otherwise designated in writing, mailed or delivered to Maker, the place for
payment of the indebtedness evidenced by this Note shall be the Holders principal
address as noted above. Payments received on this Note shall be applied first to
accrued interest, and the balance to principal.
 3.
    
    Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Note.




---



##### 



4.
    
    Except as amended by this Amendment, the Note shall remain in full force and effect,
enforceable in accordance with its terms and Maker hereby reaffirms and acknowledges
all of its obligations thereunder.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 William W. Rucks, IVSedona CorporationBy:
    Marco Emrich, President -2-
§ 1901.32 Requests for expedited processing. ( a ) All requests will be handled in the order received on a strictly “first-in, first-out” basis. Exceptions to this rule will only be made in circumstances that the Agency deems to be exceptional. In making this determination, the Agency shall consider and must decide in the affirmative on all of the following factors: ( 1 ) That there is a genuine need for the records; and
( 2 ) That the personal need is exceptional; and
( 3 ) That there are no alternative forums for the records sought; and
( 4 ) That it is reasonably believed that substantive records relevant to the stated needs may exist and be deemed releasable.
( b ) In sum, requests shall be considered for expedited processing only when health, humanitarian, or due process considerations involving possible deprivation of life or liberty create circumstances of exceptional urgency and extraordinary need. In accordance with established judicial precedent, requests more properly the scope of requests under the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure (or equivalent state rules) will not be granted expedited processing under this or related (e.g., Freedom of Information Act) provisions unless expressly ordered by a federal court of competent jurisdiction.
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 Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Noble, Chairman/Director and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David J. NobleDavid J. NobleChairman/Director
Principal Executive Officer


Date: August 13, 2010
### §200104. Consultations of Secretary with administrative officers; execution of administrative responsibilities in conformity with nationwide plan

To carry out the policy declared in section 200101 of this title, the heads of Federal agencies having administrative responsibility over activities or resources the conduct or use of which is pertinent to fulfillment of that policy shall, individually or as a group—

(1) consult with and be consulted by the Secretary from time to time both with respect to their conduct of those activities and their use of those resources and with respect to the activities that the Secretary carries on under authority of this chapter that are pertinent to their work; and

(2) carry out that responsibility in general conformance with the nationwide plan authorized under section 200103(d) of this title.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3171.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 200104 | 16 U.S.C. 460l–2. | Pub. L. 88–29, §3, May 28, 1963, 77 Stat. 50. |

Section

The word "department" is omitted as being included in "agency". The word "independent" is omitted as unnecessary.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40052 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RAMON ONATO SALDIERNA-ROJAS,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15 -CR- 598 -1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ramon Onato Saldierna

- Rojas appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction for being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after having been deported following an aggravated felony conviction. Saldierna -Rojas
contends that the district court comm itted reversible error in determining that his 2003 Georgia conviction for aggravated assault constit uted a crime of violence for purposes of the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 27, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40052 Document: 00513813222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2016No. 16

- 40052

2 As conceded by Saldierna

- Rojas in his motion for summary dis position , his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Torres -Jaime , 821 F.3d 577, 582

- 85 (5th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 1, 2016) (No. 16- 5853). Saldierna-Rojas ’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-40052 Document: 00513813222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2016
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1717 Exemptions.

[Statutory Provisions]

No notice under § 75.1716-1 and no permit under § 75.1716-2 shall be required in the case of any new working section of a mine which is located under any water resource reservoir being constructed by a Federal agency as of December 30, 1969, and where the operator is required by such agency to operate in a manner that adequately protects the safety of miners.
#### In the Matter of Eugene E. Ackerman, Individually and as Father and Natural Guardian of Daniel E. Ackerman, an Infant. Lawrence J. Forbes et al., Respondents; Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term, Supreme Court, Jefferson County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, insurer of an automobile involved in a collision with a motorcycle on which infant, Daniel E. Ackerman, was riding as a passenger, and to whom it paid first-party benefits as a covered person, may assert a lien against the recovery in an action by the infant against the owner of the motorcycle, a noncovered person (Insurance Law, § 673, subd 2, amd eff Dec. 1, 1977). However, a determination must be made as to that portion of the recovery which represents basic economic loss for which the infant has received first-party benefits *(United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v Stuyvesant Ins. Co.,*61 AD2d 1122; *Scinta v Kazmierczak,*59 AD2d 313). Accordingly the proceeding is remitted to Jefferson County Supreme Court, Special Term, for an immediate determination of this issue (CPLR 3212, subd [c]). It is directed that Special Term consider the appointment of a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the infant and that the reasonable compensation for the services of the guardian be paid by the insurers (CPLR 1202, 1204). (Appeal from order of Jefferson Supreme Court -lien.) Present-Cardamone, J.P., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.