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N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

VINCENT M. MANI, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent

______________________

2023

- 1520

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC

- 0752

- 19

- 0577

- I

- 3.

______________________
Before P ROST , R EYNA , and S TARK , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
Vincent M. Mani appealed his removal from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging various affirmative defenses of discrimination based on his disability, race, national origin, and religion. The Board affirmed the removal, and Dr. Mani petitioned this court for review and states that he wishes to continue to pursue his discrimination claims, s ee ECF No. 3 at 1

– 3; ECF No. 4

- 1 at 2. Case: 23-1520 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2023MANI v. HHS 2

Responding to the court’s order asking whether this case should be transfe rred

, Dr. Mani states that the United States District Court for the District of Maryland “ may be the correct place for [his] case,” ECF No. 10 at 1. The Department does not oppose transfer to that court. ECF No. 11. Because the district court is the app ropriate forum for judicial review of Board decisions involving agency actions appealable to the Board and alleged to be based on certain types of discrimination, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd

., 582 U.S. 420 (2017) ; Diggs v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev ., 670 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

, we agree that transfer is appropriate to the District of Maryland

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Given our disposition, Dr. Mani’s consolidation request, ECF No. 4

- 1 at 1; ECF No. 10 at 1, is best addressed to the district court

. Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT :Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

.

June 13 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Acting Clerk of Court Case: 23-1520 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 06/13/2023
### §3411. Suspension and termination of orders

#### (a) Authority and responsibility of Secretary

The Secretary shall, whenever he finds that any order issued under this chapter, or any provision thereof, obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of this chapter, terminate or suspend the operation of such order or such provision thereof.

#### (b) Referendum

The Secretary may conduct a referendum at any time, and shall hold a referendum on request of 10 per centum or more of the number of end product manufacturers subject to the order, to determine whether such manufacturers favor the termination or suspension of the order, and the Secretary shall suspend or terminate such order within six months after the Secretary determines that suspension or termination of the order is approved or favored by a majority of the end product manufacturers voting in such referendum who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the manufacture of end products or by end product manufacturers who produced end products containing more than 50 per centum of the total processed wheat contained in all end products manufactured during such period by the end product manufacturers voting in the referendum.

#### (c) Suspension or termination of order not to be considered an order

The termination or suspension of any order, or any provision thereof, shall not be considered an order within the meaning of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XVII, §1712, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 1038.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 1901 of Pub. L. 95–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 1307 of this title.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:AD-related Information:
1) 2011-SW-029-AD Ex Parte
2) 2011-SW-029-AD STC SR01383SE
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted), Gene W. Ray, the Chief Executive Officer of The Titan Corporation (the "Company"), and Mark W. Sopp, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge:



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") or its staff upon request.

This
certification accompanies the Periodic Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Periodic Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

Dated:
May 4, 2005

/s/GENE W. RAYGene W. Ray
Chief Executive Officer

/s/MARK W. SOPPMark W. Sopp
Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
### §138a. National Laboratory Accreditation Program

#### (a) Establishment of Program

The Secretary shall administer a National Laboratory Accreditation Program under which laboratories that request accreditation and conduct residue testing of agricultural products, or that make claims to the public or buyers of agricultural products concerning chemical residue levels on agricultural products, shall be determined to meet certain minimum quality and reliability standards.

#### (b) Standards

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation with the Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish, through regulations, standards for the National Laboratory Accreditation program 1 that shall include—

(1) standards applicable to laboratories;

(2) qualifications for directors and other personnel; and

(3) standards and procedures for quality assurance programs.

#### (c) Accrediting bodies

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall approve State agencies or private, nonprofit entities as accrediting bodies to act on behalf of such Secretary in implementing the certification and quality assurance programs in accordance with the requirements of this section. In making such approvals the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall—

(1) oversee and review the performance of any accrediting body acting on behalf of the Secretary to ensure that such accrediting body is in compliance with the requirements of the certification program under this section; and

(2) have the right to obtain from an accrediting body acting on behalf of the Secretary and from any laboratory that may be certified by such a body all records and materials that may be necessary for the oversight and review required by paragraph (1).

#### (d) Requirements

To be accredited under this chapter, a laboratory shall—

(1) prepare and submit an application for accreditation to the Secretary; and

(2) comply with such terms and conditions as are determined necessary by the Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

#### (e) Exceptions

This chapter shall not apply to—

(1) a laboratory operated by a government agency;

(2) a laboratory operated by a corporation that only performs analysis of residues on agricultural products for such corporation or any wholly owned subsidiary of such corporation and does not make claims to the public or buyers based on such analysis;

(3) a laboratory operated by a partnership that only performs analysis of residues on agricultural products for the partners of such partnership and does not make claims to the public or buyers based on such analysis; or

(4) a laboratory not operated for commercial purposes that performs pesticide chemical residue analysis on agricultural products for research or quality control for the internal use of a person who is initiating the analysis.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIII, §1322, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3562.)

1 So in original. Probably should be capitalized.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Weatherford International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Lisa W. Rodriguez, Chief 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:

         (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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Lisa W. Rodriguez
---------------------------------------
Name:  Lisa W. Rodriguez
Title: Senior Vice President and Chief
       Financial Officer
Date:  November 11, 2002
### §2301. Congressional findings and declaration of policy

Agricultural products are produced in the United States by many individual farmers and ranchers scattered throughout the various States of the Nation. Such products in fresh or processed form move in large part in the channels of interstate and foreign commerce, and such products which do not move in these channels directly burden or affect interstate commerce. The efficient production and marketing of agricultural products by farmers and ranchers is of vital concern to their welfare and to the general economy of the Nation. Because agricultural products are produced by numerous individual farmers, the marketing and bargaining position of individual farmers will be adversely affected unless they are free to join together voluntarily in cooperative organizations as authorized by law. Interference with this right is contrary to the public interest and adversely affects the free and orderly flow of goods in interstate and foreign commerce.

It is, therefore, declared to be the policy of Congress and the purpose of this chapter to establish standards of fair practices required of handlers in their dealings in agricultural products.

(Pub. L. 90–288, §2, Apr. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 93.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 90–288, §1, Apr. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 93, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter] shall be known as the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967."
### §499p. Liability of licensees for acts and omissions of agents

In construing and enforcing the provisions of this chapter, the act, omission, or failure of any agent, officer, or other person acting for or employed by any commission merchant, dealer, or broker, within the scope of his employment or office, shall in every case be deemed the act, omission, or failure of such commission merchant, dealer, or broker as that of such agent, officer, or other person.

(June 10, 1930, ch. 436, §16, 46 Stat. 538.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 566 of this title.
#### Frances De M. Riccobono et al., Respondents, v. Italian Line, Appellant.

Order, entered on March 26, 1964, denying the motion of defendant-appellant to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 and to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216 and granting the cross motion of plaintiffs-respondents to compel defendant-appellant to accept the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, the cross motion of plaintiffs-respondents denied and the motion of defendant-appellant granted, with $10 costs. In this 1961 action for malpractice of a ship’s physician in 1960, plaintiff fails to justify sufficiently the failure to serve a complaint after *782the stipulation extending time to do so expired on September 17, 1962 (see *Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          16,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,468
<INVENTORY>                                      5,496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,073
<PP&E>                                           7,615
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,511
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,461
<SALES>                                         64,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,337
<CGS>                                           27,714
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,016)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       401
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (615)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (615)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
### §3314. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–185, title I, §103(f)(3)(C), June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 528

Section, Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1468, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 1018, related to withholding of funds if Secretary determines institution or State is not entitled to allotment under this chapter.
#### § 705.3 [Reserved]
#### MARK REGAN v. AMERIMARK BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., CLEM FOX and MICHAEL WLOCK

No. 449A97

(Filed 6 March 1998)

Appeal by plaintiffs pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 127 N.C. App. 225, 489 S.E.2d 421 (1997), affirming the trial court’s order entered by Barnette, J., on 10 September 1996, in Superior Court, Wake County, granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 December 1997.

*Glenn, Mills and, Fisher, P.A., by Robert B. Glenn, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.*

*Granfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P, by David H. Batten, for rdefendant-appellee AmeriMark Building Products; and Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by David A. Irvin, for defendantsappellees Clem Fox and Michael Wlock.*

PER CURIAM.

Chief Justice Mitchell and Justices Webb, Parker, and Lake voted to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the majority opinion by Walker, J. Justices Frye, Whichard, and Orr voted to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by Greene, J. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

' AFFIRMED.
No. 787.

#### Karl Sandgren et al. *v.*Ulster Steamship Company, Ltd., Owner and Claimant, etc.

March 29, 1920.

*Mr. William J. Waguespack*for petitioners.

No appearance for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### MICHAEL D. HOLT v. SARA LEE CORPORATION, d/b/a SARA LEE KNIT PRODUCTS, and DAVID GELLY

No. 31PA97

(Filed 3 October 1997)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 124 N.C. App. 666, 478 S.E.2d 674 (1996), dismissing defendants’ appeal from an order entered by Tillett, J., on 25 January 1996 in Superior Court, Lee County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 September 1997.

*Staton, Perkinson, Poster, Post, Silverman, Adcock & Boone, by Norman G. Post, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, by Susan H. Boyles and James H. Kelly, Jr., for defendant-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
#### § 720.41 Definitions.

*Court.* Any judicial body in the United States with jurisdiction to impose criminal sanctions on a Department of the Navy member, employee, or family member.

*Employee.* A civilian employed by the Department of the Navy or a component service, including an individual paid from non-appropriated funds, who is a citizen or national of the United States.

*Family member.* A spouse, natural or adopted child, or other lawful dependent of a Department of the Navy employee or member accompanying the Department of the Navy member or employee assigned to duty outside the United States.

*Felony.* A criminal offense that is punishable by incarceration for more than one year, regardless of the sentence that is imposed for commission of that offense.

*Member.* An individual on active duty in the Navy, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps, or Marine Corps Reserve.

*Request for return.* Any request or order received from a court, or from federal, state or local authorities concerning a court order, for the return to the United States of members, employees, or family members, for any reason listed in § 720.42.

*Respondent.* A member, employee, or family member whose return to the United States has been requested, or with respect to whom other assistance has been requested under this instruction.

*Responsible official.* Officials designated in this instruction to act on a request to return, or take other action affecting, members, employees or family members to the United States under this instruction.

*United States.* The 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.
§ 631.9 Duties and functions of boards. The AFDCBs will— ( a ) Meet as prescribed by appendix A of this part.
( b ) Receive reports, and take appropriate action on conditions in their area of responsibility relating to any of the following— ( 1 ) Disorders and lack of discipline.
( 2 ) Prostitution.
( 3 ) Sexually transmitted disease.
( 4 ) Liquor violations.
( 5 ) Racial and other discriminatory practices.
( 6 ) Alcohol and drug abuse.
( 7 ) Drug abuse paraphernalia.
( 8 ) Criminal or illegal activities involving cults or hate groups.
( 9 ) Illicit gambling.
( 10 ) Areas susceptible to terrorist activity.
( 11 ) Unfair commercial or consumer practices.
( 12 ) Other undesirable conditions deemed unsafe which may adversely affect the health and well being of military personnel or their families.
( c ) Report to all major commanders in the board's area of responsibility— ( 1 ) Conditions cited in paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) Recommended action as approved by the board's sponsoring commander.
( d ) Coordinate with appropriate civil authorities on problems or adverse conditions existing in the board's area of jurisdiction.
( e ) Make recommendations to commanders in the board's area of jurisdiction concerning off-installation procedures to prevent or control undesirable conditions.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.

The undersigned officer of FieldPoint Petroleum Corporation (the"Company") hereby certifies that:

     i.     theaccompanying Amendment No. 4 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31,2004 (the "Report") fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

     ii.     theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  October 31, 2005

/s/ RayReaves                              Ray ReavesChief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer
#### G. Martin Barker et al., Appellants, v County of Westchester, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 21, 1978, as denied discovery and inspection of certain documents demanded pursuant to CPLR 3120 (subd [a]). Order modified by adding thereto a provision granting disclosure of the "daily record books” maintained by Tony Colao from January, 1974 through January, 1976, to the extent that they are presently in existence, as well as any employees’ reports relating to sledding accidents at Croton Gorge Park since February 27, 1964, which reports are not *809included in such daily records. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Defendant’s time to comply with the notice for discovery and inspection, to the extent applicable, is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The first two numbered paragraphs in plaintiffs’ notice for discovery and inspection fail to specify with reasonable particularity items which are material and necessary for the preparation of their case (see *Stout v General Motors Corp.,*38 AD2d 583). However, the record books sought now for the first time in Item No. 4 may contain the only business records in existence of work done by county employees to erect warning signs in the area of the accident. Accordingly, "plaintiffs should be permitted to inspect and copy these records. In addition, any employees’ reports relating to sledding accidents at Croton Gorge Park since February 27, 1964 which are not included in these daily records come within the order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 10, 1977. Consequently, if they have not already been made available to plaintiffs’ counsel, they should be disclosed in view of the liberal disclosure policy in effect in this State (see *Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.,*21 NY2d 403). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Cohalan, JJ., concur.