alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60067

LOEWEN LOUISIANA HOLDINGS, INC.,

CENTRAL SERVICES DIVISION,

Petitioner-Cross Respondent,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent-Cross Petitioner.

Petition for Review and Cross-Petition for Enforcement

of an the National Labor Relations Board

(15-CA-15069)

December 13, 1999

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has considered this appeal in light of the

briefs, oral argument and pertinent portions of the record. 

Having done so, we conclude that there is substantial

evidence to support the NLRB’s determination that the petitioner’s

supervisors are not within the purview of § 2(11) of the National

Labor Relations Act, and they were therefore properly included in

the bargaining unit. The NLRB’s order is AFFIRMED, and the

bargaining order may be ENFORCED.
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 68

Urging the President of the United States to seek an international oil embargo through the United Nations against Libya because of its refusal

to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 731 and

748 concerning the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 16 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. D’AMATO (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, and Mr. GRASSLEY) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign

Relations

RESOLUTION

Urging the President of the United States to seek an international oil embargo through the United Nations against

Libya because of its refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 731 and 748 concerning the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Whereas 441 people were murdered in the terrorist bombing

of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 and the UTA Flight 772

in 1989;

Whereas these bombings killed nationals from over 30 nations;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council first passed

Resolution 731 on January 21, 1992, and subsequently
2

SRES 68 IS

adopted Resolution 748 on March 31, 1992 in response

to the inaction of the Libyan government on this issue;

Whereas Libya has refused to provide all information in its

possession regarding the bombings;

Whereas Libya has refused to remand into American, British,

or French custody, the two suspected Libyan agents;

Whereas Libya has refused to pay compensation to the families of the victims of both flights; and

Whereas Libya has long been a state sponsor of international

terrorism, providing financial, logistical, and armed support for a variety of terrorist groups and movements:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) the President should seek an international

3 oil embargo through the United Nations against

4 Libya for its refusal to comply with United Nations

5 Security Council Resolutions 731 and 748 concern6 ing the bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA

7 772;

8 (2) Libya should comply with all provisions of

9 United Nations Security Council Resolutions 731

10 and 748;

11 (3) Libya should release to the United States or

12 Great Britain for trial, the two Libyan agents sus13 pected for complicity in the bombing of Pan Am

14 Flight 103 and to France those responsible for the

15 bombing of UTA Flight 772;
3

SRES 68 IS

1 (4) Libya should provide all information in its

2 possession regarding the two bombings;

3 (5) Libya should pay compensation to the fami4 lies of the victims of both flights;

5 (6) all United States nationals in Libya who, in

6 defiance of United States law, continue to contribute

7 to the economy of Libya, should leave immediately;

8 and

9 (7) Libya should cease support, training, and

10 the arming of terrorist groups and movements

11 throughout the world.

Æ
Exhibit 31.1








CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a) AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 303 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











I, Thomas C. Priore, certify that:





1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Priority Technology Holdings, Inc.; and





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.








April 30, 2019/s/  Thomas C. PrioreThomas C. PriorePresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)
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

HUIYUN HUANG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70254

Agency No. A095-316-219

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Huiyun Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

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

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

SEP 30 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-70254

abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,

597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Huang’s motion to reopen as

untimely because the motion was filed over six years after the BIA’s final order,

see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Huang failed to present sufficient evidence of

changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time

limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v.

Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether

circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not

have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future

persecution.”).

We reject Huang’s contention that the BIA misapplied Chen v. Mukasey,

524 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008). See Chen, 524 F.3d at 1030-32 (a petitioner subject

to a final order of removal must file a successive and untimely asylum application

with the BIA subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), which does not include an

exception to the time and number limits based on a change in personal

circumstances). Huang’s contention that the BIA required her to show a

“particular change” in country conditions is also unsupported by the record. 
3 12-70254

Finally, we do not reach Huang’s contention that she is prima facie eligible

for relief because the BIA did not deny her motion on this basis. See Najmabadi,

597 F.3d at 986.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### § 1.678(b)-1 If grantor is treated as the owner.

Section 678(a) does not apply with respect to a power over income, as originally granted or thereafter modified, if the grantor of the trust is treated as the owner under sections 671 to 677, inclusive.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 245 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 245

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should exercise 
    the line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of additional 
authoriza-tion for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of 
                         its constitutionality.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 26 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

 Mr. Specter submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should exercise 
    the line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of additional 
authorization for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of 
                         its constitutionality.

Whereas Federal spending and the Federal budget deficit have reached 
        unreasonable and insupportable levels;
Whereas a line-item veto would enable the President to eliminate wasteful pork-
        barrel spending from the Federal budget and curb the deficit before 
        considering cuts in important programs;
Whereas evidence may suggest that the Framers of the Constitution intended that 
        the President have the authority to exercise the line-item veto;
Whereas scholars who have studied the matter are not unanimous on the question 
        of whether the President currently has the authority to exercise the 
        line-item veto;
Whereas there has never been a definitive judicial ruling that the President 
        does not have the authority to exercise the line-item veto; and
Whereas some scholars who have studied the question agree that a definitive 
        judicial determination on the issue of whether the President currently 
        has the authority to exercise the line-item veto may be warranted: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the President 
should exercise the line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of 
additional authorization for the purpose of obtaining a judicial 
determination of its constitutionality.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 803-087]

                    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the                           ( print page 38179)                        Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project (project), located on Butte Creek in Butte County, California, and has prepared a final environmental assessment (final EA). In the final EA, Commission staff analyze the potential environmental effects of relicensing the project and conclude that issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.                

                    A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-18300 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 130 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 130

     To express the sense of the Congress that the Bureau of Labor 
 Statistics should develop and publish monthly a cost of living index.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

          January 3 (legislative day, December 22, 1995), 1996

 Mr. Pickett submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
  referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     To express the sense of the Congress that the Bureau of Labor 
 Statistics should develop and publish monthly a cost of living index.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics should develop an index--
            (1) which would provide a reliable means of measuring the 
        monthly change in the cost of living in the United States;
            (2) for which information would be compiled monthly, and 
        which would be published on a monthly basis; and
            (3) which would be distinct from any index that the Bureau 
        of Labor Statistics now publishes.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.01








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


REQUIRED
BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)


AND
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


OF
2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Patrick W. Cavanagh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ PATRICK W.
CAVANAGH


Patrick
W. Cavanagh


Chief
Executive Officer


Williams
Controls, Inc.


February
8, 2008
1

Edinger, Richard

From: jay.turnberg@faa.gov

Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:15 PM

To: Edinger, Richard; Christopher.J.Richards@faa.gov; Kim.Edwards@faa.gov

Cc: Mattice, Burt; Bowerman, Rick

Subject: Marking Email 11/28/2000 email to Jerry Seay

Attachments: rules.doc

‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded by Jay Turnberg/ANE/FAA on 08/20/2013 12:11 PM ‐‐‐‐‐ 

                                                                            

             Jay Turnberg                                                   

                                                                            

             11/28/2000 01:33                                           To  

             PM                        jseay@hartzellprop.com,              

                                                                        cc  

                                                                            

    Subject  

                                       Marking Rules                        

                                                                            

             

             

             

             

             

     Jerry,

     For future reference if needed.

     My opinion after reviewing the current and past part marking

     requirements (see attached), is that the method that Hartzell

     currently uses to mark the blades is acceptable.  That is:

     Serial number

     Part number (Design number)

     Builders name (Hartzell)

     PC number

     Heat Code

     This is based on the 45.11 (b) Which says "Each person who

     manufactures a propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub under

     the terms of a type or production certificate shall identify his

     product by means of a plate, stamping, engraving, etching, or

     other approved method of fireproof identification"

     According to part 21 the "product" is the propeller.  The blade

     is a critical component of the product and must according to

     45.14 have a part number and serial number.

     The TC data sheet specifies the propeller blades that are

     acceptable in the propeller models.  The propeller model, TC
2

     number, PC number, builder's name and etc. are marked for the

     product (propeller) on the hub.

     Jay Turnberg

(See attached file: rules.doc)
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

June 24, 2013

Honorable Collin P. O’Mara, Secretary

Delaware Department of Natural Resources

 and Environmental Control

89 Kings Highway

Dover, Delaware 19901

Dear Secretary O’Mara:

On May 31, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision

to the Delaware State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control. The SIP revision addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act section 110 infrastructure elements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air

quality standards. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complete, and is being reviewed to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Rose Quinto, Office 

of Air Program Planning at (215) 814-2182, or at quinto.rose@epa.gov. She is the principal 

contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely, 

/s/

 Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division 

 

cc: Mr. Ali Mirzakhalili, DNREC

 Mr. Ronald D. Amirikian, DNREC
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50827 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE RICARDO MORALES

- MERCADO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 188

- 1

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Ricardo Morales

- Mercado appeals the 51

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully present in the United States after previous deportation. He argues that his sentence was imposed under an unconstitutional s tatute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Specifically, he contends that in order to trigger a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b), the fact of a prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and proven to a

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 19, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50827 Document: 00515351605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2020No. 19

- 50827

2 jury; therefore, he asserts that § 1326(b) is unconst itutional. He correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but raises the issue to preserve for further possible review. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); Un ited States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirman ce is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50827 Document: 00515351605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2020
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 224 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 464
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 224

To amend the Standing Rules of the Senate for the use of the recording 
    studio and mass mailings with respect to uncontested elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 15 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

Mr. Ford, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported the 
    following original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To amend the Standing Rules of the Senate for the use of the recording 
    studio and mass mailings with respect to uncontested elections.

    Resolved, That (a) paragraph 1 of rule XL of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 
``, unless the candidacy of the Senator in such election is 
uncontested.''.
    (b) Paragraph 6(a) of rule XL of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, unless 
the candidacy of the Senator in such election is uncontested.''.

                                                       Calendar No. 464

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              S. RES. 224

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

To amend the Standing Rules of the Senate for the use of the recording 
    studio and mass mailings with respect to uncontested elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                June 15 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

                         Placed on the calendar
```