alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1970

FASIL TAKLETSADIK, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-203-892) Submitted: April 25, 2007 Decided: May 9, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason A. Dzubow, MENSAH, BUTLER & DZUBOW, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Jessica E. Sherman, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* We lack jurisdiction over any challenge to the Board’s order denying the motion to reopen, because Takletsadik failed to file a timely petition for review from that order. SeeStone v. INS , 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (holding filing of reconsideration motion does not toll time period for filing petition for review). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Fasil Takletsadik, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying a motion to reconsider its prior order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. * See In re Takletsadik , No. A97-203- 892 (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### 252.219-7001--252.219-7002 [Reserved]
2436.602-2 Evaluation boards. ( a ) Each architect-engineer evaluation board, whether permanent or ad hoc (which may include preselection boards), shall consist of at least three voting members who are Federal employees from the appropriate program area or from Federal offices outside the program area as appropriate. One member of each board shall be appointed chairperson. Non-voting advisors may also be appointed, including private practitioners in architecture, engineering and related professions. The members of a permanent board shall be appointed for a period of two years. Appointment shall be made by the following authorities with copies of appointment memoranda furnished to the appropriate contracting activity: ( 1 ) *Assistant Secretary* or equivalent for boards appointed at the Headquarters level;
( 2 ) The cognizant program office head for boards appointed at the field level.
( c ) *Conflict of interest.* Each board member, whether voting or nonvoting, shall be advised of, and presumed to be familiar with the regulations at 24 CFR part 0, Standards of Conduct, regarding conflicts of interest. If at any time during the selection process a board member encounters a situation with one or more of the firms being considered that might be or might appear to be a conflict of interest, he or she will disqualify him or herself and call it to the attention of the chairperson for resolution and proper action. The chairperson will refer the matter to legal counsel.
( d ) *Confidentiality.* The evaluation board is to be insulated from outside pressures, to the extent practical. No person having knowledge of the activities of the board shall divulge information concerning the deliberations of the board to any other persons not having a need to know such information.
[49 FR 7708, Mar. 1, 1984, as amended at 57 FR 59790, Dec. 15, 1992; 60 FR 46157, Sept. 5, 1995; 65 FR 3576, Jan. 21, 2000]
225.770-4 Identifying items covered by the USML or the 600 series of the CCL. ( a ) Before issuance of a solicitation, the requiring activity will notify the contracting officer in writing whether the items to be acquired are covered by the USML or the 600 series of the CCL. The notification will identify any covered item(s) and will provide the pertinent USML reference(s) from 22 CFR part 121 or the 600 series of the CCL references from 15 CFR part 774, supplement no. 1.
( b ) The USML includes defense articles and defense services that fall into 21 categories. The CCL includes ten categories and five product groups in each category, many of which contain 600 series items. Since not all items covered by the USML or 600 series of the CCL are themselves munitions (*e.g.,* protective personnel equipment, military training equipment), the requiring activity should consult the USML and the 600 series of the CCL before concluding that an item is or is not covered. See PGI 225.770-4.
[83 FR 66072, Dec. 21, 2018]
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 120 

Designating April 20, 2017, as ‘‘National Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6 (legislative day, APRIL 4), 2017 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself and Mrs. CAPITO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating April 20, 2017, as ‘‘National Alternative Fuel 

Vehicle Day’’. 

Whereas the United States should reduce dependence on foreign oil and enhance energy security by creating a transportation sector that is less dependent on oil; 

Whereas the United States should improve the air quality of 

the country by reducing emissions from the millions of 

motor vehicles that operate in the United States; 

Whereas the United States should foster national expertise 

and technological advancement in the development of 

cleaner, more energy-efficient alternative fuel vehicles and 

advanced technology vehicles; 

Whereas a robust domestic industry for alternative fuels, alternative fuel vehicles, and advanced technology vehicles 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 120 IS 

will create jobs and increase the competitiveness of the 

United States in the international community; 

Whereas the people of the United States need more options 

for clean and energy-efficient transportation; 

Whereas the mainstream adoption of alternative fuel vehicles 

and advanced technology vehicles will produce benefits at 

the local, national, and international levels; 

Whereas consumers and businesses require a better understanding of the benefits of alternative fuel vehicles and 

advanced technology vehicles; 

Whereas numerous audiences, such as first responders, require comprehensive training to become fully prepared for 

any precautionary measures for working with alternative 

fuel vehicles and advanced technology vehicles; and 

Whereas the Federal Government can lead the way toward a 

cleaner and more efficient transportation sector by choosing alternative fuel vehicles and advanced technology vehicles for the fleets of the Federal Government: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates April 20, 2017, as ‘‘National Al3 ternative Fuel Vehicle Day’’; 

4 (2) proclaims National Alternative Fuel Vehicle 

5 Day as a day to promote programs and activities 

6 that will lead to the greater use of cleaner, more ef7 ficient transportation that uses new sources of en8 ergy; and 

9 (3) urges the people of the United States— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 120 IS 

1 (A) to increase the personal and commer2 cial use of cleaner and energy-efficient alter3 native fuel vehicles and advanced technology ve4 hicles; 

5 (B) to promote public sector adoption of 

6 cleaner and energy-efficient alternative fuel ve7 hicles and advanced technology vehicles; and 

8 (C) to encourage the adoption of Federal 

9 policies to reduce the dependence of the United 

10 States on foreign oil through the advancement 

11 and adoption of alternative, advanced, and 

12 emerging vehicle and fuel technologies. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### DE COSTER v. HERZOG CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

1. Appeal—Harmless Error—Striking out Testimony.

Though the motion of a party to strike out the answers of his witness, which were irresponsive and hearsay, might properly have been granted, yet, the evidence not appearing to have been a material ground on which the verdict rested, the denial thereof is harmless error.

2. Same—Record.

Though the exception to the introduction of a memorandum is well taken, yet, the memorandum not appearing in the record, its admission is not ground for reversal.

3. Courts—Municipal Courts—Appeal—Sufficiency of Evidence.

Though plaintiff’s appeal is not from an order denying a motion for new trial, the facts in the case may be reviewed to determine whether the verdict is contrary to the weight of evidence, under Municipal Court Act Laws 1902, p. 1583, c. 580, § 326.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Twelfth District.

Action by Robert S. De Coster against the Herzog Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. L and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.

Alexander Thain, for appellant.

M. Angelo Elias, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff, who was employed under a written contract of employment for one year, .brought action to recover damages for an alleged unlawful discharge. The evidence discloses a degree of indifference on the part of plaintiff to the defendant’s business, and specific instances of inattention and laxity on the part of the plaintiff, that seems to warrant the verdict of the jury. Several exceptions were taken by the plaintiff to rulings upon the evidence and to the charge of the trial court, only two of which need be noticed.

In reply to a question of the plaintiff’s counsel, a witness made an irresponsive answer. Without moving to strike it out, the counsel upon repeating the witness’ answer elicited the response that the witness *296had learned the facts referred to from a third person. The motion of the plaintiff’s counsel to strike out was doubtless denied for the reason that the answers, although irresponsive and hearsay, were apparently pressed home and elaborated by his own questions. The motion might properly have been granted; but, since the evidence thus admitted over objection does not appear to have been a material ground upon which the verdict rested, the denial of the motion is not reversible error.

The exception to the introduction of the memorandum of Gerlach was well taken; but, since the memorandum does not appear in the record, the admission thereof cannot be held to be reversible error.

The respondent contends that the facts in the present case cannot be reviewed for the purpose of determining whether the verdict is contrary to the weight of evidence, since the plaintiff is not appealing from an order denying a motion for a new trial. This contention is negatived by section 326 of the municipal court act (Laws 1902, p. 1583, c. 580). See, also, Ayvard v. Powers, 25 Misc. Rep. 476, 54 N. Y. Supp. 984.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 181 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 181

  Designating the week of May 21 through May 27, 2017, as ``National 
                          Public Works Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2017

    Mr. Inhofe (for himself and Ms. Harris) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Designating the week of May 21 through May 27, 2017, as ``National 
                          Public Works Week''.

Whereas public works infrastructure, facilities, and services are of vital 
        importance to the health, safety, and well-being of the people of the 
        United States;
Whereas the public works infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be 
        provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, 
        including engineers and administrators, who represent State and local 
        governments throughout the United States;
Whereas public works professionals design, build, operate, and maintain the 
        transportation systems, water infrastructure, sewage and refuse disposal 
        systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities that are 
        vital to the people and communities of the United States; and
Whereas understanding the role that public infrastructure plays in protecting 
        the environment, improving public health and safety, contributing to 
        economic vitality, and enhancing the quality of life of every community 
        of the United States is in the interest of the people of the United 
        States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the week of May 21 through May 27, 2017, as 
        ``National Public Works Week'';
            (2) recognizes and celebrates the important contributions 
        that public works professionals make every day to improve--
                    (A) the public infrastructure of the United States; 
                and
                    (B) the communities that public works professionals 
                serve; and
            (3) urges individuals and communities throughout the United 
        States to join with representatives of the Federal Government 
        and the American Public Works Association in activities and 
        ceremonies that are designed--
                    (A) to pay tribute to the public works 
                professionals of the United States; and
                    (B) to recognize the substantial contributions that 
                public works professionals make to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016396EN.01000201.xml

| 27.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 396/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 396/2

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2016/C 396/02)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Greece

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : 150 years from the Arkadi Monastery Torching

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design features the Arkadi Monastery. Inscribed, at centre, is the wording ‘ARKADI MONASTERY’ and along the inner edge at left ‘HELLENIC REPUBLIC’, in Greek. Visible at upper right is the year of issuance ‘2016’ and below the central inscription a palmette (the mintmark of the Greek Mint). Inscribed at lower right is the monogram of the artist (George Stamatopoulos).

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  : max 750 000

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : 4th trimester of 2016

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 2, 2013

s0925 

# Order

Clerk October 2, 2013

146724 & (83)

LaFONTAINE SALINE, INC. d/b/a

LaFONTAINE CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE

RAM,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146724

COA: 307148

Washtenaw CC: 10

- 001329

- CZ

CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

IHS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC d/b/a/

CHRYSLER JEEP OF ANN ARBOR,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals

is considered, and it is G RANTED. The parties shall address whether the Court of

Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL

445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement

between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). Compare Kia Motors America, Inc v

Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc , 706 F3d 733, 735 (CA 6, 2013). We further

ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court together with the case of

LaFontaine Saline, Inc v Chrysle r Group LLC (Docket No. 146722), at such future

session of the Court as both cases are ready for submission.

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case

may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132197 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132197 COA: 270355 Wayne CC: 05-001603-01 MARK COUNSEL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 18, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.

s1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 31.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Ali Moussavi, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of NT Media Corporation of California, Inc. (the “registrant”), certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the registrant;





2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;





4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;





b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and





c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date: April 15, 2010





By: /s/ Ali Moussavi


Ali Moussavi,


Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### 241.205 Separate contracts.

Follow the procedures at PGI 241.205 when acquiring utility services by separate contract.

[71 FR 3417, Jan. 23, 2006]
#### 2803.1004 Contract clauses.

The information required to be inserted in the clause at FAR 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), is the following: Office of the Inspector General, Fraud Detection Office, Attn: Poster Request, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530.