alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Appellant avers "judicial efficiency would best be served by allowing 

[appellant] to move forward with this appeal." 

Respondents have submitted a reply to appellant's response. 2 

In their reply, respondents note that the "procedural posture in this case is 

flawed." Specifically, respondents indicate that rather than filing a 

motion for remand, they believe they should have filed a motion to dismiss 

this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the motion filed in the district court 

is a tolling motion, and thus the notice of appeal was premature. See 

NRAP 4(a)(5). Thus, as respondents note, the district court has 

jurisdiction to rule on the NRCP 59 motion without a remand from this 

court. NRAP 4(a)(6) (a premature notice of appeal does not divest the 

district court of jurisdiction). Thus, respondents aver that as all parties 

essentially want a new trial, this court should dismiss the appeal and the 

district court should resolve the pending tolling motion. 

Appellant filed a response to respondents' motion for leave to 

file a reply to the motion for remand in excess of the page limit. Appellant 

argues that the motion should be denied as it improperly raises matters 

not related to the original motion or appellant's response to that motion. 

See NRAP 27(a)(4) (a reply shall not present matters that do not relate to 

the response). While appellant is correct regarding the raising of matters 

not related to the response, in the interest of judicial efficiency, we elect to 

treat respondents' filing as a combined reply to the opposition and a 

motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See NRAP 2. 

2Cause appearing, we grant respondents' "Motion for Permission to 

File Reply in Excess of Page Limitation." NRAP 27(d)(2). Accordingly, the 

clerk shall file the ten-page reply that was submitted with the motion. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 19474 en 
After consideration of all the parties' filings in this matter, we 

grant respondent's motion to dismiss this appeal. As noted, the district 

court may resolve the pending NRCP 59 motion without a specific remand 

from this court. Further, either party may file a notice of appeal from any 

substantively appealable order entered by the district court. See NRAP 

3(a); NRAP 3A(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

Parraguirre 

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 15 

Jerry J. Kaufman, Settlement Judge 

Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP 

Hutchison & Steffen, LLC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(1:) 1947A at999
#### § 591.304 Financial, material, or technological support.

The term *financial, material,* *or technological* *support* means any property, tangible or intangible, including but not limited to currency, financial instruments, securities, or any other transmission of value; weapons or related materiel; chemical or biological agents; explosives; false documentation or identification; communications equipment; computers; electronic or other devices or equipment; technologies; lodging; safe houses; facilities; vehicles or other means of transportation; or goods. “Technologies” as used in this definition means specific information necessary for the development, production, or use of a product, including related technical data such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, tables, engineering designs and specifications, manuals, or other recorded instructions.

[80 FR 39677, July 10, 2015, as amended at 84 FR 64417, Nov. 22, 2019]
P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

124) IV-C-38 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 124 of 142 
P.2 

A-IO-^T3S>C-3S 

From: 

To: 

Date: 

Subject: 

DENNIS CRUMPLER 

RTPMAINHUB:RTPMAINHUB.INTERNET:"CJENKI@state.wy.us. 

3/27/00 3:04pm 

NSR reform schedule -Reply 

Christine, here is what we can say about the NSR Reform package at this time. Our current plan is to promulgate 

most of the reform package by August of this year. The Class I provisions will not be reproposed, although there 

are some changes that have been made to them based on public comment. Other areas of NSR Reform, primarily 

related to applicability will involved new proposed revisions. EPA and STAPPA/ALAPCO are scheduled to discuss 

some of the revisions on April 7. 

> » Christine Jenkins <CJENKI@state.wy.us> 03/24/00 04:37pm > » 

Dan, 

I emailed you earlier for an update on changes to the Class I Impacts portion of the NSR reform package. Could 

you please update me on the latest schedule for completing this rule? Since there have been so many changes 

overall to the original proposal, are you looking to repropose? 

Thank you for your help, 

Christine Jenkins 

State of Wyoming 

Air Quality Division 

CC: karen, Melissa
#### JURASSIC STONE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SOLNHOFEN NATURAL STONE, INC., Appellee.

No. 00-1329.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2001.

Before MICHEL and LINN, Circuit Judges, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Jurassic Stone prevailed before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) on its petition for cancellation of the registration for appellee’s mark, SOLNHOFEN. 'The Board can-celled the registration on the ground that the mark was primarily geographically descriptive, as urged by Jurassic. Jurassic now asserts a right to review of the Board’s decision insofar as it declined to also order cancellation on the other ground urged below, fraud before the trademark examiner. Because Jurassic has failed to show that the relief it requests — cancellation on a second ground — would alter the legal interests of the parties, the sole issue of its appeal is moot. *See Nasatka v. Delta Scientific Corp.,*58 F.3d 1578, 1580-81 (Fed.Cir.1995). Nor has Jurassic shown how the decision it seeks to appeal is adverse to it. After all, Jurassic won below and obtained the remedy it sought.

Although Jurassic’s appeal seems weak and appellee waived oral argument, appellee did not file a motion, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, charging that the appeal was frivolous. And, while the accuracy ,of several assertions in appellant’s brief was questioned by the panel at oral argument, we decline to pursue, *sua sponte,*whether the appeal is frivolous as filed or as argued.

For these reasons, the appeal is *dismissed.*
HomeCambodia

# Cambodia

126 items

        -    TIAS  		Cambodia (05-629) – Agreement Regarding the Non-Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  June 29, 2005 
        -    TIAS  		Cambodia (03-919) – Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Khmer Archaeological Material	  September 19, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Cambodia (96-325) – Investment Incentive Agreement	  March 25, 1996 
        -    TIAS  		Cambodia (96-122) – Defense Status of Forces Agreement	  January 22, 1996 
        -    		Charles Wayne  Turberville	  September 26, 1971 
        -    DS Memorial  		Charles Wayne Turberville	  September 26, 1971 

previous page1…111213

Back to Top
§ 542.502 Effect of license or authorization. ( a ) No license or other authorization contained in this part, or otherwise issued by OFAC, authorizes or validates any transaction effected prior to the issuance of such license or other authorization, unless specifically provided in such license or authorization.
( b ) No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizes any transaction prohibited under this part unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license is issued by OFAC and specifically refers to this part. No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license referring to this part shall be deemed to authorize any transaction prohibited by any other part of this chapter unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license specifically refers to such part.
( c ) Any regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizing any transaction otherwise prohibited under this part has the effect of removing a prohibition contained in this part from the transaction, but only to the extent specifically stated by its terms. Unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license otherwise specifies, such an authorization does not create any right, duty, obligation, claim, or interest in, or with respect to, any property which would not otherwise exist under ordinary principles of law.
( d ) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to supersede the requirements established under any other provision of law or to relieve a person from any requirement to obtain a license or other authorization from another department or agency of the U.S. Government in compliance with applicable laws and regulations subject to the jurisdiction of that department or agency. For example, exports of goods, services, or technical data which are not prohibited by this part or which do not require a license by OFAC, nevertheless may require authorization by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of State, or other agencies of the U.S. Government. *See also* § 542.701(f).
( e ) No license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.
( f ) Any payment relating to a transaction authorized in or pursuant to this part that is routed through the U.S. financial system should reference the relevant OFAC general or specific license authorizing the payment to avoid the blocking or rejection of the transfer.
#### John Albert VAN LOAN, Appellant, v. Anne Elizabeth Jolley VAN LOAN, Appellee.

No. T-225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 14, 1974.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Djibouti

61 items

        -    Report  		Djibouti	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		Summary Djibouti Border Post Evaluation [PDF]	  May 1, 2018 
        -    Report  		Djibouti	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Djibouti	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Djibouti	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Djibouti	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Djibouti	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Djibouti (03-702) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  July 2, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Djibouti (03-219) – Agreement on Access To and Use of Facilities in Djibouti	  February 19, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Djibouti (02-618.1) – Agreement for the Establishment of US Radio Transmitting Facilities in Djibouti	  June 18, 2002 

previous page1…4567next page

Back to Top
#### William KRUSEN and General Engineering and Machinery Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. GLASTEEL, INC., a California corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-884.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 14, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
FEWS NET Afghanistan FEWS NET Washington 

1717 H St NW 

Washington DC 20006 

info@fews.net 

FEWS NET is a USAID-funded activity. The authors’ views expressed in 

this publication do not necessarily reflect the view of the United States 

Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

www.fews.net/afghanistan 

AFGHANISTAN Weekly Climate Forecast #33, August 26 – September 1, 2009 

An overall above average wet season for Afghanistan has 

given way to more seasonal dry weather during the summer. 

During the winter months a deep snow pack developed across 

the central highlands and northeast mountains. As 

temperatures began to warm during the spring months, as is 

typical, the snow began to melt. The snow melt combined with 

rainfall triggered flooding. 

Snow pack now remains confined to the highest elevations of 

the northeast, as is typical for the summer. 

During July and early August, above-normal temperatures 

prevailed across the lowlands of Afghanistan with cooler-thannormal temperatures in northeast Afghanistan. 

During the next week, seasonal dry weather should be 

accompanied by above-normal temperatures in the lowlands 

(Figure 2). Extreme maximum temperatures should range from 

40 to 45 °C (Figure 3). Although not depicted on the hazards 

map, occasional dust storms will reduce visibilities in western 

and southern Afghanistan. 

Figure 1. Weather hazards in Afghanistan 

Figure 2. Temperature Anomaly for August 24 - 31, 2009. 

 Source: COLA

Figure 3. Extreme Maximum Temperature (°C) for 

August 24 - 31, 2009.

Source: NOAA/CPC
§ 800.104 Applicability rule. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section and otherwise in this part, the regulations in this part apply from February 13, 2020.
( b ) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, for any transaction for which the following has occurred before February 13, 2020, the corresponding provisions of the regulations in this part that were in effect on February 12, 2020, will apply: ( 1 ) The completion date;
( 2 ) The parties to the transaction have executed a binding written agreement, or other binding document, establishing the material terms of the transaction;
( 3 ) A party has made a public offer to shareholders to buy shares of a U.S. business; or
( 4 ) A shareholder has solicited proxies in connection with an election of the board of directors of a U.S. business or an owner or holder of a contingent equity interest has requested the conversion of the contingent equity interest.
( c ) For any transaction to which part 801 of this title was applicable from November 10, 2018, through February 12, 2020, the regulations in part 801 in effect during that time will continue to apply. Note 1 to § 800.104 :
See subpart I (Penalties and Damages) of this part for specific applicability rules pertaining to that subpart.
( d ) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, for any transaction for which the following has occurred on or after February 13, 2020, and before October 15, 2020, the corresponding provisions of the regulations in this part that were in effect during that time will apply: ( 1 ) The completion date;
( 2 ) The parties to the transaction have executed a binding written agreement, or other binding document, establishing the material terms of the transaction;
( 3 ) A party has made a public offer to shareholders to buy shares of a U.S. business; or
( 4 ) A shareholder has solicited proxies in connection with an election of the board of directors of a U.S. business or an owner or holder of a contingent equity interest has requested the conversion of the contingent equity interest.
( e ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, the amendments to this part published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2020 apply from October 15, 2020.
[85 FR 3124, Jan. 17, 2020, as amended at 85 FR 57128, Sept. 15, 2020]
#### Adam A. JAMISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold DEE (Commissioner's Disciplinary Hearing Officer for the New York State Dept. of Corr. Serv.); Donald Selsky, Dir. Sec. Housing, N.Y.S. Dept. of Corr. Services (Appeals Disciplinary Officer of NYS Dept. of Corr. Services), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-0186.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 20, 2001.

Adam A. Jamison, Collins, NY, pro se.

Ann P. Zybert, Ass’t Sol. Gen., N.Y., NY, for appellees.

Present KEARSE, LEVAL and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was submitted by plaintiff *pro se*and by counsel for defendants.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Stein’s Opinion and Order dated April 26, 2000.

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

1 See Highlands Ins.. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins.. Co.

, 27 F.3d 1027 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying in a civil case, plain error analysis of United States v. Olano

, 113 S. Ct. 1770

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60173 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EARNEST CONROD, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Mississippi

(CR-90-156-D)

March 5, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Earnest Conrod, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence, contending that his counsel did

not provide effective assistance because of an ongoing feud with the Assistant United States

Attorney. This issue was not raised in the trial court and Conrod has not shown the requisite

plain error. 1(1993)), cert

. denied , 115 S.Ct. 903 (1995).

2 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984).

2 Conrod also contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call alibi

witnesses. This claim fails because Conrod has not “overcome the presumption that, under

the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” 2

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2 – SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant
 to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 
 
 I, Michael D. McCall, Controller,  Acting Principal Accounting Officer, and Treasurer of OP-TECH Environmental Services, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 
 (1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: May 28, 2013
 /s/ Michael D. McCall
 Michael D. McCall
 Controller and Treasurer,
 Acting Principal Accounting Officer
#### § 561.312 Act of international terrorism.

The term *act of* *international terrorism* has the same definition as that provided under section 14 of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note). As of February 27, 2012, the term *act of* *international terrorism* means an act which is violent or dangerous to human life and that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state and which appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.
Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Merisel, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Timothy N. Jenson, as
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) 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/Timothy N. Jenson
------------------------------
Timothy N. Jenson
Chief Executive Officer and
  Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                             701,000
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      255,000
<ALLOWANCES>                        25,000
<INVENTORY>                         50,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 1,237,000
<PP&E>                             615,000
<DEPRECIATION>                     371,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   2,008,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           14,294,000
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                        420,000
<COMMON>                           472,000
<OTHER-SE>                         (68,554)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     2,008,000
<SALES>                          1,261,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 2,083,000
<CGS>                            1,822,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    9,707,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (1,380,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                (329,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (9,333,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (9,333,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                    (9,333,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.10)


</TABLE>