alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1778.31 Performing development. ( a ) Applicable provisions of subpart C of part 1780 of this chapter will be followed in performing development for grants made under this part.
( b ) After filing an application in accordance with § 1778.21 and when immediate action is necessary, the State Program Official may concur in an applicant's request to proceed with construction before funds are obligated provided the RUS environmental requirements are complied with. The applicant must be advised in writing that: ( 1 ) Any authorization to proceed or any concurrence in bid awards, contract concurrence, or other project development activity, is not a commitment by the Agency to provide grant funds under this part.
( 2 ) The Agency is not liable for any debt incurred by the applicant in the event that funds are not provided under this part.
§ 1717.1200 Purpose and scope. ( a ) Section 331(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Con Act), as amended on April 4, 1996 by Public Law 104-127, 110 Stat. 888 (7 U.S.C. 1981), grants authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to compromise, adjust, reduce, or charge-off debts or claims arising from loans made or guaranteed under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (RE Act). Section 331(b) of the Con Act also authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to adjust, modify, subordinate, or release the terms of security instruments, leases, contracts, and agreements entered into or administered by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The Secretary, in 7 CFR 2.47, has delegated authority under section 331(b) of the Con Act to the Administrator of the RUS, with respect to loans made or guaranteed by RUS.
( b ) This subpart sets forth the policy and standards of the Administrator of RUS with respect to the settlement of debts and claims arising from loans made or guaranteed to rural electric borrowers under the RE Act. Nothing in this subpart limits the Administrator's authority under section 12 of the RE Act.
#### § 1488.21 Exporter's records and accounts.

CCC shall have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers and records of the exporter involving transactions related to the financed export credit sale until the expiration of three years after the end of the financing period.
#### § 1786.170 Prepayment of loans approved after December 20, 1993. [Reserved]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EZZ-ELDIN MOHRAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71464

Agency No. A095-127-237

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Ezz-Eldin Mohran, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions pro se for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

FILED

JUN 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71464

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen

and review de novo legal and constitutional claims, including claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

2005). We grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying Mohran’s motion to reopen by

requiring strict compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of

Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988). The ineffective assistance of

Mohran’s prior counsel was plain on the face of the record where the record shows

prior counsel mistakenly failed to request voluntary departure before the

immigration judge issued his decision. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218,

1227 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Mohran’s remaining

contentions.

We deny Mohran’s motion to submit evidence into the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. §1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. (the "Registrant") for the
period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lynn A. Peterson, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|      |  |                                                                                             |  | 
|----- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: |  | August 6, 2009                                                                              |  | 
|By:   |  | /s/ LYNN A. PETERSON Lynn A. Peterson Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) |  | 

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 31.3** **Rule 15d-14(a)    Certification**     I, Richard G. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of PAHC Holdings    Corporation, certify that:     (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on    Form 10-Q    of PAHC Holdings Corporation;     (2) Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;     (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this 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 report;     (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I    are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure    controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, 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 report is    being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting; and     (5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     /s/  Richard G. Johnson    Richard G. Johnson,    Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial Officer)     Date: February 14, 2006
#### HURMUZE, Respondent, v. HOWE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by John G. Hurmuze against Charles T. Howe and another. G. H. Taylor, for appellants. M. Kendall, for respondent.

No opinion. Appeal from decision dismissed, with costs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, David Shaw, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by the reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.Dated:May 12, 2006   /s/ David Shaw     David Shaw  Chief Executive Officer
/*     FILE ARCHIVED ON 13:08:34 Aug 21, 2006 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 14:44:37 Mar 5, 2012.     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.     SECTION 108(a)(3)).*//* $Id: site_buyusa2005.css 313 2006-04-07 15:08:56Z cmil $ */#bu-top          { background-image: url("http://web.archive.org/web/20060821130834/http://www.buyusa.gov/style/graphics/site_buyusagov.gif"); }body.rtl #bu-top { background-image: url("http://web.archive.org/web/20060821130834/http://www.buyusa.gov/style/graphics/site_buyusagov_rtl.gif"); }a#bu-homelink    { width: 152px; }#bu-header       { background-image: url("http://web.archive.org/web/20060821130834/http://www.buyusa.gov/style/graphics/header_uscs.jpg"); }#bu-header h1    { left: 197px; width: 370px; }body.rtl #bu-header     { background-image: url("http://web.archive.org/web/20060821130834/http://www.buyusa.gov/style/graphics/header_uscs.jpg"); }body.rtl #bu-header h1  { left: auto; right: 197px; }
#### Westwood Associates et al., Respondents, v Deluxe General, Incorporated, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 15, 1979, reversed, in the exercise of discretion, and the motion of defendant-appellant for dismissal on the ground of *forum non conveniens*granted, with costs, on condition that, within 20 days after service of the order entered hereon, defendant-appellant shall stipulate to the acceptance of service of process in an action in the State of California seeking the same relief as in the instant action and shall waive any defense in the State of California based on limitation of time; if not so stipulated, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs. The subject transaction took place in California, which is the place of performance, and that forum is available for adjudication of the case; the witnesses and pertinent docu*573merits are also there, and another case involving the same relationships and some of the same parties is currently pending there. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.149 Exception authority. ( a ) The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this subpart or address any omission of this subpart which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law if the Administrator determines that the Government's interest would be adversely affected or the immediate health and/or safety of tenants or the community are endangered if there is no adverse effect on the Government's interest. The Administrator will exercise this authority upon request of the State Director with recommendation of the appropriate program Assistant Administrator or upon request initiated by the appropriate program Assistant Administrator. Requests for exceptions must be made in writing and supported with documentation to explain the adverse effect, propose alternative courses of action, and show how the adverse effect will be eliminated or minimized if the exception is granted.
( b ) The Administrator may authorize withholding sale of surplus farm inventory property temporarily upon making a determination that sales would likely depress real estate market and preclude obtaining at that time the best price for such land.
§ 1530.108 Revocation or surrender of licenses. ( a ) A license may be revoked upon written notice by the Licensing Authority.
( b ) A licensee may surrender a license when the sum of all credits is equal to or greater than the sum of all charges.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7121

HERBERT G. FISHER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

S. K. YOUNG, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-694)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 28, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert G. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss and denying relief on his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we grant in forma pauperis status but deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Fisher v. Young, No. CA-97-694 (E.D. Va.

June 4, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ James E. MinarikJames E. MinarikMay 15, 2006
    Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, James F. Cleary, Jr.and Mary Patricia B. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer, respectively, 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, thatto our knowledge:

 
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                    |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in  the Report. |

 

April 30,2009

 

 
| /s/ James F.  Cleary, Jr. |     |
|--------------------------------|----------|
| James F.  Cleary, Jr.     |     |
| *Chief  Executive Officer*     | * * |
| * *                       | * * |
| * *                       | * * |
| /s/ Mary  Patricia B. Thompson | * * |
| Mary Patricia B.  Thompson     |     |
| *Chief  Financial Officer*     | * * |

 

----
413 A.2d 83.

#### Sandra A. DiRocco *vs.*Vincent DiRocco.

APRIL 10, 1980.

Present: Kelleher, Doris, Weisberger and Murray, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by a husband from a decree entered in the Family Court granting his wife’s petition for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. On Wednesday, March 5, 1980, oral argument was presented, both for and against the wife’s motion, which asks that, acting pursuant to our Rule 16(g), we summarily affirm the Family Court decree and deny the husband’s appeal.

The husband, who professes an inability to understand English, appeared before us with an interpreter. Through the interpreter and in direct conversation with us, the husband made it clear that the sole reason for appealing is his dissatisfaction with the terms of the property agreement that are incorporated within the *871divorce decree. According to the husband, his trial counsel was directed to contest the wife’s petition unless the husband’s interest in the couple’s jointly held real estate was preserved. The husband was present at the Family Court hearing, and he assumed that the matter had been resolved according to his wishes; but “upon discovering such was not the case,” he initiated this appeal. The husband now claims that his counsel’s “misleading and false representations”1 vitiate the Family Court proceeding.

*Robert J. Bevilacqua, Anthony DeSimone,*for appellee.

*Vincent DiRocco,*pro se.

If he is to prevail on this contention, he cannot do so by way of an appeal from the entry of the interlocutory divorce decree. Whatever merit there may be to the husband’s alleged inability to know what was going on in the Family Court, the truth or falsity of the charges he now makes about his trial counsel cannot be considered by us in this proceeding. The matters he complains of may serve as a basis for a motion to vacate the divorce decree, and the appropriate forum for considering such a motion is the Family Court. There, testimony can be taken, parties can be examined, and factual findings made by a trial justice who can assess the credibility of witnesses who appear. However, the assertions presently being made by the husband serve as no defense to the motion presently before us.

Consequently, the motion to affirm is granted, and the husband’s appeal is denied and dismissed without prejudice to his seeking relief as outlined above.

Mr. Chief Justice Revilacqua did not participate.

1

The quotes appearing in this opinion are taken from the husband’s pro se brief. At the hearing before us, we were informed by the interpreter that he had assisted the husband in preparing the brief.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Cybersecurity and Cyber Safety for Schools and Institutions of Higher Education Fact Sheets      

# Resource: Cybersecurity and Cyber Safety for Schools and Institutions of Higher Education Fact Sheets

These fact sheets, developed by the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center, explain how cyber incidents can affect schools, school districts, and institutions of higher education, and the steps they can take to respond
                  - Cyber Safety Considerations for K-12 Schools and Districts  (PDF, 8 pages)
                  - Cybersecurity Considerations for K-12 Schools and Districts  (PDF, 8 pages)
                  - Cybersecurity Considerations for Institutions of Higher Education  (PDF, 11 pages)