alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dc<:emcber 10, 2013 

156 Diablo Road, Suit~ :/.\i3 

Danville, CA 94526 

Tel; 925-342~443{), Fax: 925..362·4432 

Honorable Richard C 00C1Ct\¥in, Aa'mL,'Iis.trative Law 

U.S. Department ofTr.It1$portation 

of Hearings, M-20 

1200New Ave.,SE(Bll·3!0) 

Washington, DC 2059() 

Re: FDMS No. FAA-21H2·0469 

Dear Goodw-in, 

RECEIVED 

DEC 1 6 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

.! can certainly nn<;lerstand why l'vk Bobertz. and Ms. Naotni do not want to move ahead with 

this case and why they have fil<.ld a motion denial ofthe extra days th11t l have 

reqnested beyond your 6 deadline. I was not able to 

get someihing d<.1ne in a timely f<L'>hi<;m that he Jtme 

2012 which was contrary to the Or<ierils•tablisrting Pro•cedlm·e~. 

because JudgeY oder of •:::hieL'.<;lrninistratl\.-e 

Respondent' s Motion Strike Amended Com:.> lain! S<mrcod 

no a corlsid.erntiml. 

believe that a few el!tra days <:an 

ihanks in advrmce 

Michael 

!>resident 

Aero l\1ieronesia, Inc. 

ymn COUS!dl~fat'IOU. 

~. 

rnatter oarticttlru· <:asc,
_fcAe&AL-__e>_E LsAv^&J^^tAiA^^

2 3L^£C^t^(>xST_^I&7^Co^^:L-C'fc 5*4T3M^-^e«*A^7y7_X£^4I4_

— ; yAp o1? *3 27 2015"

Xo—Trit—#f2McaeA6L£< ^s^jxL€5_je>^_rrttL_^fevu^r_o/p ^^AL^iML^SQBM- nsft-

-Cca^e-b klevAj ^^^jy_&eA^^r4^£.uU4Jur pet? sl ^p ezsp-£j¥/^L,Ly_m£&>-

: _^ X : -

FILED IN

MAR <iV tw'JJ :

JL

Abel Acosta, Clerk

: : ^3r_, :

jel*.

^Trtx<; xs tAfPe,tJL_AKrr'-s fm&t ££,®^tsT Pee. g*rM^o*J- eAfffeLLAur < m-
#### § 1a.3 Persons authorized.

Any person who is employed in the Office of Inspector General and who is designated by the Inspector General in accordance with and subject to § 1a.5 and who conducts investigations of alleged or suspected felony criminal violations of statutes administered by the Secretary of Agriculture or any agency of the Department of Agriculture may exercise the authorities listed in and pursuant to § 1a.2.
J. 

appellant failed to demonstrate that she had not received the proper 

amount of credits. 2Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

Douglas 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge 

Joyce Denise Hicks 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

J. 

2Appellant appeared to claim that due to her classification she was 

denied the ability to earn additional credits. Appellant did not 

demonstrate that she was entitled to any additional credits as she was not 

entitled to receive minimum-custody credits.
#### Helen S. Frederick *v.*Robert P. Frederick

*Ryssard S. Mrotek,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*John F. Walsh,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued October 5

decided October 5, 1971

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
#### § 1260.124 Consumer information.

*Consumer information* means nutritional data and other information that will assist consumers and other persons in making evaluations and decisions regarding the purchasing, preparing, and use of beef and beef products.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1**  **835**

In re: TERRANCE SYKES , P etitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 7 :1 3

- cv - 00 207

- SGW

- RSB )

Submitted : August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Terrance Sykes , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terrance Sykes petitions for a writ of ma ndamus seeking an order directing the district court to consider his various filings as he captioned them , grant the relief they request, and enter an appealable final order . We conclude that Sykes is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin C orp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court has already entered a final order from which Sykes may attempt to appeal and the remainder of t he relief sought by Sykes is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leav e to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional proc ess.

PETITION DENIED
#### Alexander Strull Advertising, Inc., Respondent, v. Acrolite Products, Inc., Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 25, 1966, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements and defendant’s motion remitted to Special Term for the purpose of conducting a hearing to determine whether defendant’s answer and the affidavit of defendant’s president, under date of February 9, 1966, submitted in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, bear the forged signature of defendant’s president. Subsequent to the granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, defendant moved to vacate the judgment entered thereon on the ground that its former attorney had served a verified answer and, in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, had submitted an affidavit of defendant’s president, both of which contained the latter’s forged signature. If the hearing held upon the remission herein establishes that ,the< signature of defendant’s president on the above affidavit was forged, the order and judgment entered upon plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be vacated and Special Term should consider the additional relief requested in defendant’s notice of motion (CPLR 5015). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1942

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1942.130-1942.131 [Reserved]
#### § 1788.54 Compliance with contracts.

It is the responsibility of the borrower to determine, before the commencement of work, that the engineer, architect, and the contractor have insurance that complies with their contract requirements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 1
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                      215,072,441
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  10,281,459
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             239,260,677
<CASH>                                       1,459,775
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                         143,345,057
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       3,657,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             457,095,319
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            269,601,050
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         33,916,832
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                             17,942,034
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       823,790
<OTHER-SE>                                 114,718,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               457,095,319
<PREMIUMS>                                  78,731,102
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         13,614,475
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             503,319
<OTHER-INCOME>                              11,327,400
<BENEFITS>                                  48,976,951
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 12,171,208
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        20,417,251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             20,874,352
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,121,914
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         16,752,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                16,752,438
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.02
<RESERVE-OPEN>                             138,760,610
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         51,429,000
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                          (2,452,000)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          15,439,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            39,741,000
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                            132,558,000
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                    (2,452,000)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1518

EVODIA KAH TABOH, Petitioner,
v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 17, 2008 Decided: July 14, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Nkwenti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, Kristin A. Mor esi, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Evodia Kah Taboh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s order finding her removable and denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review. We have reviewed the administrative record, the immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s affirmance thereof, and find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that Taboh failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating that burden of proof is on alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Such a causal nexus is required to support the grant of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000); Saldarriaga v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 461, 466 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, as Taboh cannot sustain her burden on the asylum claim, she cannot establish her entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8- 3 - U.S.C.A.] § 1231(b)(3) [(West 2005)].”). In addition, we uphold the finding that Taboh failed to establish that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. See8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JIMMIE BARGE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv405/LAC/EMT

SECRETARY DEP’T OF CORR.,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

February 4, 2021 (ECF No. 16). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

16) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-00405-LC-EMT Document 24 Filed 04/12/21 Page 1 of 2
Page of 2

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv405/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-00405-LC-EMT Document 24 Filed 04/12/21 Page 2 of 2
#### Richard W. Gilliam, plaintiff in error, v. Florence F. Gilliam, defendant in error.

Gen. No. 33,686.

Opinion filed January 27, 1930.

Samuel J. Andalman, for plaintiff in error. Schuyler, Weinfeld & Parker, for defendant in error; Howard D. Moses and Henry E. Jacobs, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 1970.2 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 

NOLAND COMPANY

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 Noland Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lloyd U. Noland, III, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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 to the best of my 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Noland Company and will be retained by Noland Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchanged Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Lloyd U. Noland, III

Lloyd U. Noland, III

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

May 5, 2004
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1697 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal 

motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2013 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself and Mrs. KIRKPATRICK) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used 

in mobile mammography vehicles. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mobile Mammography 

5 Promotion Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFUNDS OF FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAXES 

7 FOR FUEL USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY 

8 VEHICLES. 

9 (a) REFUNDS.—Section 6427 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 (relating to fuels not used for taxable 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1697 IH

1 purposes) is amended by inserting after subsection (f) the 

2 following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(g) FUELS USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHI4 CLES.—Except as provided in subsection (k), if any fuel 

5 on which tax was imposed by section 4041 or 4081 is used 

6 in any highway vehicle designed exclusively to provide mo7 bile mammography services to patients within such vehi8 cle, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to the ulti9 mate purchaser of such fuel an amount equal to the aggre10 gate amount of the tax imposed on such fuel.’’. 

11 (b) EXEMPTION FROM RETAIL TAX.—Section 4041 

12 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing new subsection: 

14 ‘‘(n) FUELS USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHI15 CLES.—No tax shall be imposed under this section on any 

16 liquid sold for use in, or used in, any highway vehicle de17 signed exclusively to provide mobile mammography serv18 ices to patients within such vehicle.’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

21 of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
FORM
6-K

SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON,
D. C. 20549




---

REPORT
OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

Pursuant
to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For
the month of November 2002

Commission
File Number: 000-12713




---

NEC
CORPORATION

(Translation
of registrant's name into English)




---

7-1,
Shiba 5-chome Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan

(Address
of principal executive offices)




---

The
registrant files annual reports under cover of Form 20-F.



---

SIGNATURE



NEC
				CORPORATION(Registrant)By:
			
			/S/
                                    NOBUHITO
                                YAGINobuhito
				Yagi
				Associate
				Senior Vice President and
				General
				Manager, Legal Divison




---












---



Current
Report (Summary)

<COVER>    (omitted)

<CONTENTS>

(1)
Reason for filing

NEC Corporation (the
“Company”) established NEC Electronics Corporation (“NEC
Electronics”) on November 1, 2002. As a result, NEC Electronics
became a significant subsidiary of the Company and the Company
filed a Current Report pursuant to Paragraph 4 of Article 24-5 of
the Securities and Exchange Law in Japan as well as pursuant to Item 3 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Cabinet Office Ordinance.



(2)
Matters to be reported

(i)
Outline of the significant subsidiary

Name:
NEC Electronics Corporation

Place
of business: 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-ku, Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa,
Japan

Name
of the representative: Kaoru Tosaka

Amount
of stated capital: 50 billion yen

Scope
of business: Research, development, manufacture, sale and services of
semiconductors

(ii)
The total number of voting interests in NEC Electronics held by the
Company and its ratio to the total number of voting interests in NEC
Electronics before and after the applicable event.

(a)
Number of voting interests held by the Company:

Before
the applicable event:      -

After
the applicable event: 100,000,000

(b)
Ratio to the total number of voting interests:

Before
the applicable event:      -

After
the applicable event: 100%

(iii)
Reason and date of applicable event

(a)
Reason for the applicable event: Establishment of NEC Electronics
Corporation

(b)
Date of the applicable event: November 1, 2002
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 2646

_____________________________
D ENVER I VAN W ILSON ,
Petitioner
,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction.

September 21, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
The order under review was converted sua sponte to a petition for writ of certiorari. However, upon further review, the mandamus complaint filed in circuit court sought to compel certain administrative action. Because we find that the trial court’s action was not the equivalent of judicial review of a d isciplinary action, the case is not controlled by Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission
, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998). Regardless, we reach the same decision under review as a direct appeal. The denial of the mandamus complaint is affirmed.

K ELSEY , M.K. T HOM AS , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Denver Ivan Wilson, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
Editorial Note on Part 1948
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1948.57 Eligible activities. Grant Funds may be used for: ( a ) The preparation of growth management and/or housing plans (or aspects thereof) for which financial resources are not available for approved designated areas as set forth in the grant agreement, including but limited to: ( 1 ) One hundred percent of the total cost of developing growth management and/or housing plans.
( 2 ) One hundred percent of the cost of developing aspects of growth management plans and/or housing plans including but not limited to: ( i ) Sewer plans;
( ii ) Water plans;
( iii ) Recreation plans;
( iv ) Transportation plans;
( v ) Education plans; and
( vi ) Subdivision plans.
( 3 ) Payment of salaries of professional, technical, and clerical staff to carry out growth management and housing planning and evaluation;
( 4 ) Payment of necessary reasonable office expenses such as office rental, office utilities, and office equipment rental;
( 5 ) Purchase of office supplies;
( 6 ) Payment of necessary reasonable administrative posts, such as workmen's compensation, liability insurance, and employer's share of social security and travel; and
( 7 ) Payment of costs to undertake tests, make appraisals, and arrange for engineering/architectural services necessary for the planning activity.
( b ) Up to 75 percent of the actual cost of developing or acquiring sites for housing, public facilities, or services for which financial resources are otherwise not available as set forth in the grant agreement, including but not limited to: ( 1 ) Necessary grading and leveling;
( 2 ) Sewer and water connections;
( 3 ) Necessary water and sewer lines to housing and public facilities sites;
( 4 ) Access roads to housing and public facilities sites;
( 5 ) Restoring previously mined sites;
( 6 ) Necessary engineering reports in connection with site development;
( 7 ) Payment of costs to undertake tests, make appraisals, and engineering/architectural services necessary for the site development and/or site acquisition;
( 8 ) Necessary legal fees involved in the transfer of the real property.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertA. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, tothe best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert A. Snyder                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Robert A. Snyder                       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  and President |
|   | May 6, 2010                       |

 

1

----