alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Harry G. Gordon, Petitioner. Committee on Character and Fitness for the First Judicial Department, Respondent.

—On remittitur from the Court of Appeals petitioner’s application for admission to practice in this State is granted only to the extent of referring the matter to the Committee on Character and Fitness for the First Judicial Department for a report as to whether petitioner possesses the character and fitness to practice law and, pending receipt of such report, determination of petitioner’s application is held in Attorney. Concur — Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

Report of Independent Auditors

To
the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of VIASYS Healthcare Inc.

We
have audited the consolidated financial statements of VIASYS Healthcare Inc. as of December 28, 2002 and December 29, 2001, and for each of the three years in the
period ended December 28, 2002, and have issued our report thereon dated February 12, 2003 (included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K). Our audits also
included the financial statement schedule listed in Item 15(a) 2 of this Form 10-K. This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion based on our audits.

In
our opinion, the consolidated financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents
fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

|                                             |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 12, 2003 |  |                      

---

QuickLinks
#### 952.211-70 Priorities and allocations for energy programs (solicitations):

As prescribed in 911.604(a), insert the following provision in solicitations that will result in the award of a contract in support of DOE atomic energy programs:

# Priorities and Allocations (Atomic Energy) (APR 2008)

Contracts or purchase orders awarded as a result of this solicitation shall be assigned a [ ] DO-Rating; [ ] DX Rating; and certified for national defense use in accordance with the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) regulation (15 CFR part 700) (Contracting Officer check appropriate box.)

(End of provision)

[73 FR 10985, Feb. 29, 2008, as amended at 74 FR 36369, 36370, July 22, 2009]
#### Charles J. L. Simon, as Executor of George A. Simon, Deceased, Respondent, v. Emergency Hospital of the Diocese of Buffalo, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying the motion of defendant, Emergency Hospital of the Diocese of Buffalo, to drop it as a party defendant in the action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### 9904.418-62 Exemptions.

This Standard shall not apply to contracts and grants with state, local, and Federally recognized Indian tribal governments.
#### § 1124.9 Handler.

See § 1000.9.
#### § 1200.14 Submission to Secretary.

Upon the expiration of the period allowed for filing exceptions or upon request of the Secretary, the hearing clerk shall transmit to the Secretary the record of the proceeding. Such record shall include: All motions and requests filed with the hearing clerk and rulings thereon; the certified transcript; any proposed findings or conclusions or written arguments or briefs that may have been filed; the Administrator's recommended decision, if any; and such exceptions as may have been filed.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of YaSheng Group (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 operation of the Company.




Date:  July 30, 2010By:
/s/ Zhuang Hai YunZhuang Hai YunChief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 1126.42 Classification of transfers and diversions.

See § 1000.42.
P

EORIA

LakePleasant

RegionalPark

!"c$

?Â

BLACK

CANYON

CITY

Sheep

Mountain

RMZ

Constellation / Buckho

r

n

M

I

n

e

Roads

CastleHotSprings

SRMA

HellsCanyon

Wilderness

Hassayampa

RiverCanyon

Wilderness

Tule

Creek

ACEC

Hieroglyphic

MountainsRMZ

LakePleasant/

AguaFriaSCRMA

BureauofLandManagement

PhoenixDistrictOffice

Phoenix,AZ

October2006

Note:TheBureauofLandManagement(BLM)

conductslanduseplanningonlyintheareasadministered

byBLM.BLMhasnoplanningauthorityunderthe

municipalorcountyplanninglegislationoftheState

ofArizona.

NowarrantyismadebyBLMfortheuseofthismap

forpurposesnotintendedbyBLM,ortotheaccuracy,

reliabilityorcompletenessoftheinformationshown.

SpatialinformationmaynotmeetNationalMapAccuracy

standards.Thisinformationmaybeupdatedwithout

notification.

±

Note:LandStatuslegendlocatedonMap1-1

Map2-84

CastleHotSprings

ManagementUnit

MultipleResourceAllocations&

SpecialAreaDesignations

AlternativeE

01234

Miles

BLMWilderness

USFSWilderness

Interstate

MajorRoad

MajorRiver,StreamsorWash

Highway

AguaFriaNational

MonumentPlanningArea

BradshawHarquahala

PlanningArea

ManagementUnit

ResourceAllocations

SpecialAreaDesignation

WildernessCharacteristics

AreaofCritical

EnvironmentalConcern

(ACEC)

CountyBoundary

SpecialRecreation

ManagementArea(SRMA)

RecreationManagement

Zone(RMZ)

SpecialCulturalResource

ManagementArea

(SCRMA)-PublicUse

ProposedBack

CountryByway

RouteDesignationWithinACEC

Close

Limited

Open
#### Fatoumata KEITA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondents.

No. 06-5326-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 7, 2007.

Brian Kaplan (Barry R. Goldberg, on the brief), Goldberg *&*Kaplan, LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Hillel Smith, Office of Immigration Litigation,(David M. McConnell, Deputy Director, Civil Division, and Lisa M. Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Department of Justice on the brief) Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

PRESENT: Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN and Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Fatoumata Keita, a native and citizen of Mali, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming a decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn that denied her application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). *See In re Fatoumata Keita,*No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 19, 2006), *aff'g*No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 19, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the issues on appeal, and the procedural history.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary and factual determinations underlying the denial of an application for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *De La Vega v. Gonzales,*436 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006). We do, however, have jurisdiction to review “challenges to the exercise of routine dis*141cretion” that “raise ‘constitutional claims or questions of law.’ ” *De La Vega,*436 F.3d at 146; *see also*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

Keita contends that the BIA denied her a full and fair opportunity to present her application for cancellation of removal by refusing to (1) consider the new evidence she sought to offer on appeal or (2) construe her pro *se*brief to the BIA as a motion to remand based on newly acquired evidence. We conclude that, although Keita frames her petition for review as a due process challenge to the BIA’s determination, her claim essentially amounts to a disagreement with the manner in which the IJ and BIA exercised their discretion. We therefore dismiss her petition. *Cf. Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales,*496 F.3d 132, 136 (2d Cir.2007) (noting that we lack “jurisdiction to review decisions under the INA when the petition for review essentially disputes ... the wisdom of [an agency’s] exercise of discretion and raises neither a constitutional claim nor a question of law”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, Keita’s pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 37 (Friday, February 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11838-11839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03944]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request; Preparer Hardship Waiver Request and Preparer 
Explanation for Not Filing Electronically

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this 
notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submissions may be 
obtained from Molly Stasko by emailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#316163707145435450424443481f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5202001312262037332127202b7c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>, calling (202) 
622-8922, or viewing the entire information collection request at 
www.reginfo.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    Title: Preparer Hardship Waiver Request and Preparer Explanation 
for Not Filing Electronically.
    OMB Control Number: 1545-2200.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Description: A tax preparer uses Form 8944 to request a waiver from 
the requirement to file tax returns on magnetic media when the filing 
of tax returns on magnetic media would cause a hardship. A specified 
tax return preparer uses Form 8948 to explain which exception applies 
when a covered return is prepared and filed on paper.
    Form: IRS Form 8944 and IRS Form 8948.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,910,000.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 8,910,000.
    Estimated Time per Response: 7.99 hours for Form 8944 and 1.99 
hours for Form 8948.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 18,270,900 hours.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.


[[Page 11839]]


    Dated: February 22, 2021.
Molly Stasko,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-03944 Filed 2-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

JOHN TOWER,1

Petitioner Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

JANET FOWLER, 

Respondent Below, 

Appellee.

§ 

§ No. 268, 2023 

§ 

§ Court Below–Family Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ File No. CN14-04728 

§ Petition No. 22-21006 

§ 

§ 

§

Submitted: September 7, 2023 

Decided: September 14, 2023 

ORDER

On August 2, 2023, John Tower filed an appeal from the Family Court’s July 

26, 2023 letter addressing the merits of Tower’s petition for a rule to show cause. 

Because the Family Court docket reflected that a hearing was scheduled on the 

petition for the following week, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice, sent by 

certified mail, to Tower to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for 

his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an 

apparent interlocutory order. The United States Postal Service information sheet 

indicates that the notice was sent out for delivery on August 15, 2023. On August 

23, 2023, the Court resent the notice to Tower at the address he provided to the Court 

1

 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 

via first-class mail. A timely response to the notice to show cause was due on or 

before September 6, 2023. To date, Tower has not responded to the notice to show 

cause. Dismissal of the appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice
Follow Up Meeting on EPA's RegionalHaze Proposal for Texas and OklahomaJuly 15, 2015Good News: SO2Emissions Continue Significant Decline2• First and second quarter 2015 SO2emissions combinedare 34% lower than 2014 and 55% lower than 2011• By comparison, the first half of 2015 (Q1&Q2) are24,188 tons less than the first half of 2014 and 56,823tons less than the first half of 2011But . . . Continued Impact from International Sources3• International sources continue to impact 3 Class Iareas• TCEQ’s daily air quality forecasts indicate air qualityimpacts from Mexico & Central America agriculturalburning and African dust• Monday 05/18/15 – “A patchy mix of smoke from agriculturalburning in Mexico and Central America and African dust maycontinue over most of South Texas, parts of Central Texas,southeastern portions of WestTexas, and southern portionsof the Panhandle . . . .”• Tuesday 05/26/15 Extended Outlook - “Light amounts ofsmoke from agricultural burning in Mexico and CentralAmerica should cover most of South and Central Texas, aswell as southeastern portions of West Texas . . . .”• How will international emissions be accounted for in final rule?And . . .Regional Consistency Issues Remain4• EPA’s approach to the Texas SIP continues to be unique fromhow other regions are handling regional haze issues• One example: EPA Region 3 approved the West Virginia 5-year progress report on June 5, 2015, highlighting severaldifferences:• Region 3 finds reliance on CAIR/CSAPR adequate;• Region 3 finds state on track to meet RPG based on IMPROVEdata and “changes in energy demand affecting capacityutilization of power plants”• Region 3 finds that post-2018 that are outside of the firstplanning period should be considered first by the State “insubsequent SIPs for future implementation periods”• This example highlights many of the concerns with Region 6proposal for Texas SIP: discounts CAIR/CSAPR; fails toconsider improvements in visibility; reaches outside of firstplanning period.• How will Region 6 resolve these consistency issues?Scope of Additional Modeling and Technical Work5• In seeking extension from court, EPA said it willconduct “additional air quality modeling and othertechnical work.” What is the nature of this additionalmodeling?• EPA’s new modeling and analyses should includeupdated visibility, emissions, and internationaltransport data.• With CSAPR and MATS now in effect, how will EPAaccount for these rules in its new modeling?• Will require new notice and comment period—what istiming of that?Questions or follow up on Luminant’s analysesand comments6
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zumiez Inc., a Washington corporation (the Company), on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended October 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard M. Brooks, Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Trevor S. Lang, Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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/ Richard M. Brooks       |  |  |  | /s/ Trevor S. Lang                             
|Richard M. Brooks           |  |  |  | Trevor S. Lang                                 
|                            |  | 
|Principal Executive Officer |  |  |  | Principal Financial Officer and Secretary      
|December 2, 2010            |  |  |  | (Principal Accounting Officer) December 2, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Zumiez Inc. and will be retained by Zumiez Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Sergey Kolosovskiy et al., Respondents, v Tommoso Vitale, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 882]

an action, inter aha, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated October 9, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As the moving party on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant bore the prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The defendant, who concededly failed to raise the issue of notice or foreseeability *(see Jacqueline S. v City of New York,*81 NY2d 288 [1993]; *Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc.,*50 NY2d 507 [1980]), failed to sustain his prima facie burden. Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact as to foreseeability *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), and the court need not consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers to that extent *(see Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy,*226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]).

On the other questions tendered by the defendant regarding the alleged broken door and whether the assailants were invitees, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment on those grounds. Altman, J.P, S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### § 1124.86 Deduction for marketing services.

See § 1000.86.
#### 970.5203-1 Management controls.

As prescribed in 970.0370-2(a) and 970.3270(a)(4), insert the following clause:

# Management Controls (JUN 2007)

(a)(1) The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining, as an integral part of its organization, effective systems of management controls for both administrative and programmatic functions. Management controls comprise the plan of organization, methods, and procedures adopted by management to reasonably ensure that: the mission and functions assigned to the Contractor are properly executed; efficient and effective operations are promoted including consideration of outsourcing of functions; resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, mismanagement, unauthorized use, or misappropriation; all encumbrances and costs that are incurred under the contract and fees that are earned are in compliance with applicable clauses and other current terms, conditions, and intended purposes; all collections accruing to the Contractor in connection with the work under this contract, expenditures, and all other transactions and assets are properly recorded, managed, and reported; and financial, statistical, and other reports necessary to maintain accountability and managerial control are accurate, reliable, and timely.

(2) The systems of controls employed by the Contractor shall be documented and satisfactory to DOE.

(3) Such systems shall be an integral part of the Contractor's management functions, including defining specific roles and responsibilities for each level of management, and holding employees accountable for the adequacy of the management systems and controls in their areas of assigned responsibility.

(4) The Contractor shall, as part of the internal audit program required elsewhere in this contract, periodically review the management systems and controls employed in programs and administrative areas to ensure that they are adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of the systems are being accomplished and that these systems and controls are working effectively. Annually, or at other intervals directed by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall supply to the Contracting Officer copies of the reports reflecting the status of recommendations resulting from management audits performed by its internal audit activity and any other audit organization. This requirement may be satisfied in part by the reports required under paragraph (i) of 48 CFR 970.5232-3, Accounts, records, and inspection.

(b) The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining, as a part of its operational responsibilities, a baseline quality assurance program that implements documented performance, quality standards, and control and assessment techniques.

(End of clause)

[65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 16243, Mar. 31, 2006; 72 FR 29081, May 24, 2007; 72 FR 39761, July 20, 2007; 74 FR 36374, 36378, 36380, July 22, 2009]
#### 9904.416-10 [Reserved]
#### § 1126.75 Plant location adjustments for producer milk and nonpool milk.

For purposes of making payments for producer milk and nonpool milk, a plant location adjustment shall be determined by subtracting the Class I price specified in § 1126.51 from the Class I price at the plant's location. The difference, plus or minus as the case may be, shall be used to adjust the payments required pursuant to §§ 1126.73 and 1000.76.
Opinion issued July 24, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00328-CR

———————————

IN RE RAMON SALGADO, JR. Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By petition for writ of mandamus, Relator Ramon Salgado, Jr. seeks to 

compel the trial court judge to credit jail time served between February 14, 2000 

through November 14, 2001. Salgado failed to provide a record demonstrating that 

 

1

The underlying cause of action is Ramon Salgado, Jr. v. The State of Texas, in the 

District court of Harris County, Texas, 177th Judicial District, cause no. 868211, 

the Honorable Ryan Patrick presiding.
2

the trial court failed to credit Salgado for time served for the offense charged in the 

underlying case. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All 

outstanding motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).