alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40072 Conference Calendar

DAVID LAVORD DODD; ET AL, Plaintiffs,

PAUL D. HARVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THOMAS L. FORD; JAMES MEYERS; COFFIELD UNIT ADMINISTRATION, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-66

- - - - - - - - - - August 19, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Paul D. Harvey, Texas inmate # 686576, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s dismissal,No. 98-40072 -2- as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), of his civil rights lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Harvey contends that he did not receive a copy of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. A complaint filed IFP is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). We review the dismissal of an IFP complaint as frivolous for an abuse of discretion and the dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo
. Id. ; see Black v. Warren , 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). Although we apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), pro se parties must assert the issues that they wish to present on appeal and must argue some error in the district court’s decision. See Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); see Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Parties have an implicit duty pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d) “to inquire periodically into the status of their litigation.” Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 987 F.2d 1199, 1201 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Harvey does not challenge the reasons for the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit, he has abandoned the only issue on appeal with respect to the claims that were before this court. Brinkmann , 813 F.2d at 748.No. 98-40072 -3- Harvey’s appeal is without arguable merit, is frivolous, and is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; see Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Harvey is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals or pleadings filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Harvey should therefore review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Amy Pope’s Nomination for Director General of the International Organization for Migration

# 									Amy Pope’s Nomination for Director General of the International Organization for Migration							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

October 3, 2022

The United States is proud to nominate Amy Pope to be the next Director General of the International Organization for Migration (IOM).  Ms. Pope currently serves as the Deputy Director General for Management and Reform at IOM.

Amy Pope is the visionary and inclusive leader IOM needs at this time of unprecedented displacement and migration. She is experienced at working with governments, non-governmental organizations, and community stakeholders to translate policies into reality.  Ms. Pope has successfully led governance and budget reforms at IOM, which have garnered wide support from IOM’s member states.  Ms. Pope has proven her exceptional capacity to achieve results that serve migrants, to lead and support IOM’s workforce, and to collaborate closely with member states.  She envisions an IOM that strengthens member state engagement and invests in human capital.

The United States strongly supports Amy Pope’s candidacy.  We are confident that under her leadership, IOM will thrive as the premier international organization for migration.

Tags

Bureau of International Organization AffairsBureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationImmigrationInternational OrganizationsOffice of the SpokespersonRefugeesThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of JACOBS  FINANCIAL  GROUP,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  August 31, 2006 (the  "Report")
filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  I, Robert L. Neal,  Chief
Financial 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:

     (1) The Company's  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.



         October 16, 2006                         /s/ Robert L. Neal
                                                   --------------------------
                                                    Robert L. Neal
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
§ 26.2642-3 Special rule for charitable lead annuity trusts. ( a ) *In general.* In determining the applicable fraction with respect to a charitable lead annuity trust— ( 1 ) The numerator is the adjusted generation-skipping transfer tax exemption (adjusted GST exemption); and
( 2 ) The denominator is the value of all property in the trust immediately after the termination of the charitable lead annuity.
( b ) *Adjusted GST exemption defined.* The adjusted GST exemption is the amount of GST exemption allocated to the trust increased by an amount equal to the interest that would accrue if an amount equal to the allocated GST exemption were invested at the rate used to determine the amount of the estate or gift tax charitable deduction, compounded annually, for the actual period of the charitable lead annuity. If a late allocation is made to a charitable lead annuity trust, the adjusted GST exemption is the amount of GST exemption allocated to the trust increased by the interest that would accrue if invested at such rate for the period beginning on the date of the late allocation and extending for the balance of the actual period of the charitable lead annuity. The amount of GST exemption allocated to a charitable lead annuity trust is not reduced even though it is ultimately determined that the allocation of a lesser amount of GST exemption would have resulted in an inclusion ratio of zero. For purposes of chapter 13, a charitable lead annuity trust is any trust providing an interest in the form of a guaranteed annuity described in § 25.2522(c)-3(c)(2)(vi) of this chapter for which the transferor is allowed a charitable deduction for Federal estate or gift tax purposes.
( c ) *Example.* The following example illustrates the provisions of this section:
Example. T creates a charitable lead annuity trust for a 10-year term with the remainder payable to T's grandchild. T timely allocates an amount of GST exemption to the trust which T expects will ultimately result in a zero inclusion ratio. However, at the end of the charitable lead interest, because the property has not appreciated to the extent T anticipated, the numerator of the applicable fraction is greater than the denominator. The inclusion ratio for the trust is zero. No portion of the GST exemption allocated to the trust is restored to T or to T's estate.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                         CERTIFICATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, George A. Powell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Birch Branch, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  November 21, 2005



/s/ George A. Powell
--------------------------------------
George A. Powell
Vice-President, Secretary and Director
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 09-48]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 09-48 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: August 12, 2009.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 42285)          ( print page 42286)          ( print page 42287)          ( print page 42288)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E9-20008 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
#### Azzedine FAIDY, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 01-70261.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Azzedine Faidy, a native and citizen of Morocco, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. The transitional rules apply. *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). Because Faidy failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies and departed the United States after the May 4, 1998, deportation order, we lack jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (1996); *Thorsteinsson v. INS,*724 F.2d 1365, 1367-68 (9th Cir.1984).

PETITION DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
From: James Hirtz/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

Cc: Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Bradfield/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Kelley Spence/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Terri Hollingsworth/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 07/03/2012 01:51 PM 

Subject: RE: Pulp and Paper RTR draft final rule 

________________________________________

Here is a comparison of the Proposal for Pulp and Paper with the Final 

James Hirtz

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OAQPS/HEID/ATAG

109 T. W. Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

hirtz.james@epa.gov

(919)-541-0881 voice

(919)-541-0359 Fax
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 315.16 Pledge. ( a ) *General.* A savings bond may not be hypothecated, pledged, or used as security for the performance of an obligation, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Pledge under Treasury Circular No. 154.* A bond may be pledged by the registered owner in lieu of surety under the provisions of Department of the Treasury Circular No. 154, current revision (31 CFR part 225), if the bond approving officer is the Secretary of the Treasury. In this case, an irrevocable power of attorney shall be executed authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to request payment.
39972.

#### SCOTT v. SCOTT et al.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. “One who seeks rescission of a contract on the ground of fraud must restore, or offer to restore, the consideration received thereunder, as a condition precedent to bringing the action; and a petition which fails to allege restoration or offer to restore before institution of the suit is demurrable.” *Wheeler v. Pioneer Investments, Inc.,*217 Ga. 367 (122 SE2d 518) and cases cited; *Code*§ 20-906. The law recognizes some excuses for the failure to make ten*444der of the fruits of the contract. See *Drew v. Lyle,*88 Ga. App. 121 (76 SE2d 142); *Mutual Savings Life Ins. Co. v. Hines,*96 Ga. App. 442, 447 (3) (100 SE2d 466) and cit. See, generally, annotations under *Code*§ 20-906, catchword “Restoration.”

Decided March 4, 1963.

*II. Cliff Hatcher,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lewis & Lewis, B. E. Lewis, Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, E. D. Fulcher,*contra.

2. The plaintiff’s allegations, as finally amended, being that he did not tender the consideration received under a claims release contract until after bringing this action for damages arising out of a claim covered by the contract because he was illiterate and therefore did not know the amount of the consideration received under the contract until the defendant had filed his plea in bar with a copy of the contract attached, are insufficient to relieve him of the necessity for making the tender before bringing the action, since no facts are alleged to show that he could not have obtained this information prior to bringing the action. The petition also alleges that the defendants paid the plaintiff’s medical bills. Although it was not alleged that this was done with the plaintiff’s consent or at his direction, construing the petition most strongly against the pleader we must assume that it was; therefore, the excuse for failure to make tender that the defendants had placed it beyond his power to do so is not available to the plaintiff. No timely tender, or valid excuse for the failure thereof, having been made, the contract was not rescinded and was a bar to the alleged cause of action against the defendant; therefore it was not error to sustain the general demurrer and dismiss the action.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Bussell, JJ., concur.*
|                                  | (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. |
|                                  |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                |   |   |   |
|                                  |   | By:    |                                                                                                                                                                | /s/      C. Neil Beer |   |   |
|                                  |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                | C.      Neil Beer |   |   |
|                                  |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                | Chief      Executive Officer |   |   |
|                                  |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                |   |   |   |
|  Date: August      14, 2008 |   | By:    |                                                                                                                                                                | /s/      Edward C. Hall |   |   |
|                                  |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                |  Edward C.      Hall |   |   |
|                                  |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                | Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |

----
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42954

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KEVIN EUGENE HANKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 664

Filed: October 20, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum 

term of confinement of five years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, 

affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Kevin Eugene Hankins pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho 

Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum 

term of confinement of five years. Hankins appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hankins’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.