alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| CERTIFICATION |
|---------------|

| (1)    | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      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. |

| /s/ Dean      Antonis                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dean      Antonis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| President      (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| Date: May      20, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
§ 423.2134 Extension of time to file action in Federal District Court. ( a ) An enrollee may request that the time for filing an action in a Federal District Court be extended.
( b ) The request must: ( 1 ) Be in writing.
( 2 ) Give the reasons why the action was not filed within the stated time period.
( 3 ) Be filed with the Council.
( c ) If the enrollee shows that he or she had good cause for missing the deadline, the time period will be extended. To determine whether good cause exists, the Council uses the standards specified in §§ 405.942(b)(2) or (b)(3) of this chapter.
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5139, Jan. 17, 2017]
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 this quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended January 2, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Oldham, Vice
President of Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul Oldham                                                                  
|Paul Oldham                                                                      
|Vice President of Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary

Dated: February 9, 2010

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Freeman *v.*Edmundson & Co.

*Claim Suit.*

(Decided May 16, 1911.

56 South. 260.)

*Appeal md Error; Review; New Trial; Evidence.*— The refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial will not be disturbed where the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is not so decided as to clearly convinvce the court that the verdict was wrong.

Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. D. W. Speake.

Edmundson & Co. had execution levied upon certain property to which John E. Freeman' imposed a claim. There was verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, whereupon claimant entered motion for new trial which was refused.

Affirmed.

M. K. Clements, for appellants.

There was no evidence to support the verdict, and the court should have ■granted a new *trial.*— White *v. Blair,*95 Ala. 147; *Cobb v. Malone,*92 Ala. 630; *Shepherd v. Dowling,*103 Ala. 563. The appeal should not be dismissed. — Buie £1, Sup. Ct. Pr.

W. B. Walker, for appellee.

The appeal should be dismissed because not submitted at the call to which it was returnable by law. — Sec. 2870, Code 1907; *So. Ry. v. Abraham Bros.,*161 Ala. 317; *Porter v. Martin,*139 Ala. 318; *Sears v. Rirlcsey,*81 Ala. 98. 'The evidence is not so clearly against the verdict as to authorize this court to review it on appeal.

WALKEB, P. J.

The overruling of the motion for a new trial is the only matter which is assigned as er*648ror. The grounds of that motion were that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict. On the issue presented by the claim interposed by the appellant (claimant below) to the two horses levied upon as the property of Leonard Pitts (in whose possession they were found), the conflicts in the evidence were such as to make the question fairly one for the determination of the jury. While the persons who were present when the trade involving the two horses was made between the claimant and Pitts state that the swap was made with the express condition that one Vaughn, who held a mortgage on the mule which Pitts was to give as part of the consideration for the two horses, should consent to the trade, and the evidence showed that this consent was not given, yet there was evidence tending to show that the trade was an unconditional one — for-instance, declarations of the parties indicating that such was the case, the unconditional written promise of Pitts to pay the sum which he was to give in hoot, and the circumstance, indicated by some of the testimony, that Vaughn’s consent to the trade was not sought until after the horses had been levied on as the property of Pitts. The claim that the verdict was unsupported by any evidence is wholly without merit. Nor is it made to appear that the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict was so decided as clearly to convince this court that it was wrong and unjust. It follows that the action of the lower court in denying the motion for a new trial cannot be made a ground of reversal.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 19, 2011

y1012 

# Order

October 19, 2011

142424 & (45)

_____________ _______________ _____________

In re JACK E. CRANE TRUST.

________________ _______________ __________/

JACK D. CRANE, Appellant,

v SC: 142424 COA: 293006 Macomb CC: 2 008-195427-TV J. RUSSELL LABARGE, JR., Successor Trustee of the JACK E. CRANE TRUST, LILIA CRANE, and DONALD STREHL , Successor Personal Representative of the Es tate of DONALD CRANE, Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e December 2, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for
leave to file brief am icus curiae is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3260 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3260

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act relating to proposed 
                       regulation of pharmacists.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 17, 1996

  Mr. Crapo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act relating to proposed 
                       regulation of pharmacists.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pharmacist's Patients Protection Act 
of 1996''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING OF REGULATION.

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is amended by adding at 
the end the following:

``SEC. 906. FUNDING.

    ``None of the funds appropriated or made available to the Food and 
Drug Administration may be used to implement the proposed regulation 
``The Prescription Drug Product Medication Guide Requirements (August 
24, 1995).''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRANDEN EDWIN LINDBERG,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 35470

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv

- 05671

- RBL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN , Circuit Judges.

Branden Edwin Lindberg appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in her Title VII action alleging sex discrimination and retaliati on claims

.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. §1291. We review for an abuse of discr etion

rulings on discovery issues

. Laub v. U.S. Dep ’ t of Interior , 342 F.3d 1080, 1084

* This dis position is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

(9th Cir. 2003)

. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lindberg’s motions

to compel discovery because the information requested was ir relevant to the issues

in the case

. See Laub , 342 F.3d at 1093 (“A district court is vested with broad

discretion to permit or deny discovery, and a decision to deny discovery will not be

disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of disco very results in

actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding defendant

$ 1,322.20 for the cost of Lindberg’s deposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) ( courts

may tax costs that were “necessarily obtained for use in the case” ); Alflex Corp. v.

Underwriters Labs., Inc. , 914 F.2d 175, 176

- 177 (9th Cir. 1990) ( setting forth

standard of review and holding that fees for deposition transcri pts necessarily

obtained for use in a case may be recovered under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 ).

We reject as u nsupported by the record Lindberg’s contention that the

district court judge was biased.

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal, or matters not

specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v.3

Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2006145EN.01000101.xml

| 21.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 June 2006

(2006/C 145/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2546 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,43 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4550 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68240 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2345 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5596 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 93,92 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8980 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,480 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 276,28 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0680 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5250 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,64 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,210 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0312 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7017 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4026 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7437 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0221 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9994 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 200,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,8983 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0413 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2675 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 768,15 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,598 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,807 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,9845 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,154 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2546

JPY

Japanese yen

144,43

DKK

Danish krone

7,4550

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68240

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2345

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5596

ISK

Iceland króna

93,92

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8980

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,480

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

276,28

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0680

RON

Romanian leu

3,5250

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,64

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,210

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0312

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7017

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4026

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7437

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0221

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9994

KRW

South Korean won

1 200,21

ZAR

South African rand

8,8983

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0413

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2675

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 768,15

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,598

PHP

Philippine peso

66,807

RUB

Russian rouble

33,9845

THB

Thai baht

48,154

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 5, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY L. MAYS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. TERRY MARTIN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 12-5219 (D.C. No. 12-CV-00520-CVE-PJC) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY , HOLMES , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jerry L. Mays, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, without prejudice. Mays v. Martin , 12-cv-00520-CVE-PJC (N.D. Okla. Dec. 12, 2012). We deny his request and dismiss the appeal. On September 17, 2012, Mr. Mays filed a § 2254 petition in the district court. R. 3–15. On September 27, the court issued a show cause order directing Mr. Mays to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Id. at 16–18. The court also ordered Mr. Mays to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as a second or successive habeaspetition. Id. Although Mr. Mays filed a response, he did not pay the filing fee or file an IFP motion. Id.at 19–29. The court dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the court’s order. Id. at 30–32. We will only issue a COA if Mr. Mays makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, without a merits determination, Mr. Mays must show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable not only whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim, but also whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Mr. Mays has made no such showing. We conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court properly dismissed the petition on procedural grounds. In its September 27 order, the district court warned Mr. Mays that “[f]ailure to comply . . . may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.” R. 18. Mr. Mays did not pay the required fee or file for IFP despite the district court’s order to do so. Accordingly, we DENY a COA, DENY IFP status, and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

- 2 -
HomeUnder Secretary for ManagementRemarks & Releases...Updated Guidance on Operations During a Lapse in Appropriations

# 									Updated Guidance on Operations During a Lapse in Appropriations							

Other Release

Under Secretary for Management

March 21, 2024

Download Guidance						 [520 KB]

Tags

Bureau of Global Talent ManagementManagement PolicyState Department At WorkUnder Secretary for Management

Back to Top
HomeRussia

# Russia

1815 items

        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (12-909) – Visa Agreement	  September 9, 2012 
        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (11-713.2) – Protocol to the Agreement Concerning the Management and Disposition of Plutonium Designated as No Longer Required for Defense Purposes and Related Cooperation	  July 13, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (11-713.1) – Agreement Concerning the Management and Disposition of Plutonium Designated as No Longer Required for Defense Purposes and Related Cooperation	  July 13, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (11-419) – Agreement on the Transit of Armaments, Military Equipment, Military Property, and Personnel through the Territory of the Russian Federation in Connection with . . . Security, Stabilization and Reconstruction of Afghanistan	  April 19, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (11-205A) – Annexes to Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms	  February 5, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (11-205) – Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms	  February 5, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (11-111) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Field of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy	  January 11, 2011 
        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (10-429) – Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Field of Research on High Energy and Nuclear Physics	  April 29, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (10-225) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Certification of Seafood Products from the United States to the Russian Federation	  February 25, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		Russian Federation (08-1030) – Agreement on the Establishment of a Direct Secure Communications System Between the United States and the Russian Federation	  October 30, 2008 

previous page1…176177178179180…182next page

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 23

                         PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
                         One International Place
                         Boston, Massachusetts 02110




                         Consent of Independent Accountants

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
   Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-46641) of our
   report dated February 11, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial
   statements of Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and
   1997, and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998,
   which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                      /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP

   Boston, Massachusetts
   March 22, 1999
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JANG WOO LEE,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72866

Agency No. A200-883-783

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jang Woo Lee, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a continuance. Our jurisdiction is 

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72866 

continuance and review de novo claims of due process violations. Sandoval-Luna 

v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in 

part the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying 

Lee’s request for a third continuance, where the BIA sufficiently provided its 

reasons for affirming the IJ’s analysis by citing Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I. & N. 

Dec. 807, 812-13 (BIA 2012), and the IJ properly evaluated the factors outlined in 

that decision. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(the agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies 

relevant case law in rendering its decision); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 

990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the agency] consider the 

issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing 

court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation 

and quotation marks omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(to prevail on a due process claim, a petitioner must show error and prejudice).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lee’s unexhausted contentions regarding 

right to counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 

F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (8 U.S.C. “§ 1252(d)(1) mandates exhaustion and 
3 15-72866 

therefore generally bars us, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching 

the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.