alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maurice U. PLANTE, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7281.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 8, 2007.

Rehearing Denied March 9, 2007.

Maurice U. Plante, of Warwick, Rhode Island, pro se.

Allison Kidd-Miller, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appel-lee. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Kathryn A. Bleecker, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Michael G. Daugherty, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Michael T. Osborne, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Before NEWMAN, MAYER and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Maurice U. Plante appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of service connection for his headache disorder. *Plante v. Nicholson,*No. 04-0735, 2006 WL 322025 (Vet.App. Jan. 27, 2006). Because we lack jurisdiction, we *dismiss*his appeal.

We may only review a Veterans Court decision to the extent that it pertains to the validity of “a rule of law or of any statute or regulation ... or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter),” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), or “to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision,” *Id.*§ 7292(c). Unless an appeal from the Veterans Court presents a constitutional issue, we do not otherwise have jurisdiction *986to review either “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of particular case.” *Id.*§ 7292(d)(2).

Plante offers many reasons why he believes the Veterans Court’s decision was erroneous. After careful consideration of his arguments, including our own independent review of the decision on behalf of this *pro se*appellant, we are unable to find any issues or errors pertaining to either the validity or the interpretation of a rule of law, statute, or regulation. Moreover, notwithstanding his numerous assertions of constitutional violations, none of Plante’s arguments actually raise an issue pertaining to the United States Constitution. At most, they pertain to factual conclusions and the application of the law to those factual conclusions, neither of which is sufficient to establish jurisdiction here.
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130546 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 130546 

 COA: 264361 

Muskegon CC: 04-051083-FH

BRIAN LEE HILL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows: 

Defendant was charged with multiple counts involving child sexually abusive 

material; only one of these is at issue in this case. The Court of Appeals determined that 

under MCL 750.145c(2) a person "arranges for, produces, makes, or finances" child 

sexually abusive material when he downloads such material from the Internet and "burns" 

it onto a CD. I would grant leave to appeal to determine (a) whether the more reasonable 

meaning of this language is to sanction persons who originate such material; (b) whether 

the Court of Appeals interpretation would essentially render nugatory the prohibition in 

MCL 750.145c(4) on the "possession" of child sexually abusive materials because it 

would impose the same penalty on a person who downloads such material as the person 

who actually entices the child to pose for the material; and (c) whether the Court of 

Appeals interpretation of "makes" has legal consequences in other digital contexts. For 

example, does a person who downloads a pirated movie "make" such a movie and would 

the person be subject to the same penalty as the person who originally pirated the movie? 

Does a person who downloads a pirated song "make" such a song and would the person 

be subject to the same penalty as the person who originally made available the song? 

Does a person who downloads a defamatory article from the Internet "make" such an 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

article and would the person be subject to the same penalty as the original publisher of 

the defamation? 

d1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 27, 2006 

Clerk
#### § 27.39 Issuance of classification records.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, as soon as practicable after the classification of cotton has been completed by the Cotton and Tobacco Programs, the Quality Assurance Division shall issue an electronic cotton classification record showing the results of such classification. Each electronic record shall bear the date of its issuance. The electronic record shall show the identification of the cotton according to the information in the possession of the Cotton and Tobacco Programs, the classification of the cotton and such other facts as the Deputy Administrator may require.

[77 FR 5380, Feb. 3, 2012]
TAX EXEMPT 

BONDS (TEB)

office of 

Tax Exempt Bonds (TEB) offers 

specialized information and services

to the municipal finance community.

Municipal bonds provide tax-exempt

financing for the furtherance of 

governmental and qualified purposes

including the construction of airports,

hospitals, recreational and cultural

facilities, schools, water infrastructure,

road improvements, as well as facilities

and equipment used in providing

police, fire and rescue services.

You can get information about our

products and services through our 

Web site, by telephone, and by mail.

TEB ASSISTANCE

Tax Exempt Bonds Web site:

www.irs.gov/bonds

CUSTOMER ACCOUNT SERVICES:

(877) 829-5500

Internal Revenue Service TE/GE

Tax Exempt Bonds (T:GE:TEB)

1111 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20224 

IRS ASSISTANCE

IRS Web site: www.irs.gov

Access for federal tax forms with instructions, publications, and latest tax law.

IRS FORMS & PUBLICATIONS: 

(800) 829-3676 

Call to order free copies of IRS forms

and publications. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Tax Exempt &Government Entities (TE/GE)
Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

www.irs.gov

Publication 3834 (09-2002)

Catalog Number 32169G

TAX 

EXEMPT 

BONDS

LEADERSHIP

National Headquarters

WASHINGTON, DC

W. Mark Scott. . . . . . . . . . . . (202) 283-9820

Director

Frances T. Hallihan. . . . . (202) 283-9787

Executive Assistant

Clifford Gannett. . . . . . . . . (202) 283-9798

Manager,

Outreach, Planning and Review

BALTIMORE, MD

Charles Anderson . . . . . . . (410) 962-2269

Manager, Field Operations

Field Management

BALTIMORE, MD

Robert Choi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (410) 962-9424

DENVER, CO

Derek Knight. . . . . . . . . . . . . (720) 956-4293

ATLANTA, GA

Cheryl Dinsmore. . . . . . . . (404) 338-8232

ST. PAUL, MN

Jack Davis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (651) 312-7723

INDEPENDENCE, OH

Karen Skinder. . . . . . . . . . . . (216) 520-7052
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 275

#### Editorial Note:

OMB control numbers relating to this part 275 are contained in § 271.8.

#### § 275.1 General scope and purpose.

Under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, each State agency is responsible for the administration of SNAP in accordance with the Act, Regulations, and the State agency's plan of operation. To fulfill the requirements of the Act, each State agency shall have a system for monitoring and improving its administration of the program. The State agency is also responsible for reporting on its administration to FNS. These reports shall identify program deficiencies and the specific administrative action proposed to meet the program requirements established by the Secretary. If it is determined, however, that a State has failed without good cause to meet any of the program requirements established by the Secretary, or has failed to carry out the approved State plan of operation, the Department shall suspend and/or disallow from the State such funds as are determined to be appropriate in accordance with part 276 of this chapter.

[Amdt. 160, 45 FR 15898, Mar. 11, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 266, 52 FR 3407, Feb. 4, 1987; Amdt. 328, 56 FR 60051, Nov. 27, 1991; 75 FR 33436, June 11, 2010]
Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, Michael P. Sage, certify that:1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Orchids Paper Products Company (the“Registrant”);2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.     The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (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 such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)     [reserved](c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)     Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5.     The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  September 1, 2005 /s/ Michael P. Sage   Michael P. Sage   Chief Executive Officer and President
#### § 29.2436 Wrappers (A Group).

This group consists of leaves usually grown at or above the center portion of the stalk. Cured leaves of the A group show a low percentage of injury affecting wrapper yield. Wrappers are high in oil, very elastic, and have a smooth leaf surface.

| U.S. grades | Grade names and specifications |
| --- | --- |
| A1F | Choice Medium-brown Wrappers. |
| | Medium body, ripe, firm, rich in oil, elastic, strong, bright finish, deep color intensity, broad, 95 percent uniform, and 5 percent injury tolerance. |
| A2F | Fine Medium-brown Wrappers. |
| | Medium body, ripe, firm, rich in oil, elastic, strong, clear finish, deep color intensity, spready, 90 percent uniform, and 10 percent injury tolerance. |
| A1D | Choice Dark-brown Wrappers. |
| | Heavy, ripe, firm, rich in oil, elastic, strong, bright finish, deep color intensity, broad, 95 percent uniform, and 5 percent injury tolerance. |
| A2D | Fine Dark-brown Wrappers. |
| | Heavy, ripe, firm, rich in oil, elastic, strong, clear finish, deep color intensity, spready, 90 percent uniform, and 10 percent injury tolerance. |
#### Samuel Volk, Petitioner, v State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.

Determination of the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board dated July 9, 1979, which annulled the instant complaint after a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights that there was no probable cause that the respondent, Yeshiva University, had engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices, confirmed on the merits, without costs and without disbursements. The determination and order of the *511division dated June 4, 1979, stated that petitioner who was 69 years old when he filed his complaint in 1977, had been employed in a teaching and professorial capacity by respondent since 1939, became disabled in 1972 with an ulcer, and suffered a severe heart attack in 1976. Petitioner, a Judaic scholar of renown, was kept on respondent’s payroll until April, 1977 on the assumption he would resume work. Petitioner did not offer substantial medical evidence that he was physically capable of performing the duties of the position he sought to reacquire. He is now living in Miami Beach, Florida. The division determined that there was no probable cause that Yeshiva University engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices. We have examined the contentions of the petitioner and the findings of the New York State Division of Human Rights and confirm that, under the circumstances, there was no evidence of discrimination. In examining the record, this court has had to do that which the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board should have done when this complaint was before it. The board annulled the division’s determination without examining the merits on the ground that the division had unreasonably exceeded the statutory time limit of 180 days (Executive Law, § 297, subd 2) from the filing date of the complaint to the date of its final order and determination, and that section 297-a (subd 7, par c) of the Executive Law required dismissal of the complaint on the theory that the time limits are mandatory. As we recently held in *Matter of Callaghan v State Div. of Human Rights*(72 AD2d 679, 680), "The extended time limits provided by the recent amendment of section 297 (L 1977, ch 729, §§ 1, 2) are directory, not mandatory”. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2311 

JEAN BOSCO MURENZI,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-903-144)

Submitted: September 25, 2006 Decided: October 16, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol

Federighi, Mark L. Gross, Andrew G. Braniff, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

As Murenzi’s brief raised no claims concerning the denial of

withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against

Torture, any such claims are waived. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,

178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jean Bosco Murenzi, a native of Uganda and citizen of

Rwanda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the

immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture.* Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined

process, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2006), the immigration

judge’s decision is the final agency determination. See Camara v.

Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004).

Murenzi challenges the Board’s finding that his testimony

was not credible, and that he otherwise failed to meet his burden

of proof to qualify for asylum. We will reverse this decision only

if the evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder

could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution,” Rusu v. INS,

296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and

citations omitted), and uphold credibility determinations if they

are supported by substantial evidence. See Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446

F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).

We have reviewed the administrative record and the

Board’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the
- 3 -

adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Murenzi failed to

establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future

persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is

on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). 

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
98-1732.

#### State v. Trent.

Allen App. No. 1-98-3. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 54 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 1
Abatement Order filed September 26, 2012

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00978

- CV

____________ GLORIA GURKA AND ERI C BROCK , Appellant s
V.
TRACY GURKA , Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 42514



### ABATEMENT ORDER
This appeal is from a judgment signed October 26, 2011. It appears from the record that the judgment is not final.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.2 provides as follows:
The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be modified so as to be made final and may allow the modified order and all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record.Tex. R. App. P. 27.2. Thus, this court has discretion to permit the parties to take the steps

necessary to make the order being appealed final.
Accordingly, we order the case abated and remanded to the trial court for a period of thirty days to permit the parties to obtain an order severing the paternity claim from the wrongful death suit. A supplemental clerk ’ s record containing the order of severance and
shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before October 26 , 2012

.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court = s active doc ket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court ’ s active docket when the supplemental clerk ’ s record is filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate
the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
#### § 22.101 The Rural Development Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-419).

The Rural Development Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-419), herein called the Act consists of six titles designed to facilitate the development of rural communities through a series of authorizations including grants, loans, and administrative provisions. This Act adds new statutory rural development coordination responsibilities to certain Federal departments and agencies to be carried out under the leadership of the Secretary of Agriculture.
**EXHIBIT 32.1** **CERTIFICATION    OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Commercial    Lines Inc. (the “Company”) on    Form 10-Q    for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”), I, Mark R. Holden, Chief Executive    Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.    § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    result of operations of the Company.     /s/  MARK R. HOLDEN    Mark R. Holden    President and Chief Executive Officer     May 11, 2006
#### §§ 1753.12-1753.14 [Reserved]
#### § 2500.016 Submission of a proposal.

The RFP will provide deadlines for the submission of proposals. OAO may issue separate RFPs and/or establish separate deadlines for different types of proposals, different award instruments, or different topics or phases of the assistance programs. If proposals are not received by applicable deadlines, they will not be considered for funding. Exceptions will be considered only when extenuating circumstances exist, as determined by OAO, and justification and supporting documentation are provided by the applicant. Conformance with preparation and submission instructions is required and will be strictly enforced unless a deviation has been approved. OAO may establish additional requirements. OAO may return without review proposals that are not consistent with the RFP instructions.