alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
792 A.2d 589

#### In the Matter of Lisa Yvette HENDERSON. Petition for reinstatement from inactive status.

No. 126 DB 2001.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 23, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2002, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated December 14, 2001, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that LISA YVETTE HENDERSON, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
§ 458.67 Standards complaint; initiation of proceedings. A complaint filed under § 458.66 shall constitute the institution of a formal enforcement proceeding in the name of the Chief, DOE or District Director, who shall be the only complaining party in the proceeding and shall, where he believes it appropriate, refrain from disclosing the identity of any person who called the violation to his attention (except in proceedings involving violations of § 458.29, Election of officers). The complaint shall include the following: ( a ) The name and identity of each respondent.
( b ) A clear and concise statement of the facts alleged to constitute violations of the CSRA or FSA or of this part.
( c ) A statement of the relief requested.
( d ) In any complaint filed by the Chief, DOE on the basis of a complaint received from a member of a labor organization pursuant to § 458.63, a statement setting forth the procedures, if any, followed to invoke available remedies, including the dates when such procedures were invoked, and the substance of any ruling or decision received by the complaining member from the labor organization or any parent body.
[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980. Redesignated and amended at 50 FR 31311, 31313, Aug. 1, 1985; 59 FR 15117, Mar. 31, 1994; 62 FR 6094, Feb. 10, 1997]
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 2048

DONG JI

,

Petitioner

,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : March 19, 2018 Decided: May 17, 2018

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Leslie Anne Davis, Joseph R. Melanson, CROWELL & MORING, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brooke M. Maurer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., fo r Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Dong Ji , a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China , petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his app eal

from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his request for asylum and withholding of

removal . We have thoroughly reviewed the record , including the transcript of Ji’s merits

hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does n ot

compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision,

INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re Ji (B.I.A. Aug.9, 2017 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional pr ocess.

PETITION DENIED
Jane

Grano

Food and Nutrition Services Granos

Palabras de vocabulario: 

yo, gustar
Este libro pertenece a:
Me gusta el pan.
Me gusta la pasta.
Me gustan las palomitas de maíz.
Me gusta el cereal.
Me gustan las tortillas.
Me gusta el arroz.
Me gustan los granos.
¡Hola, Jane Grano!

Descubre otros materiales 

de educación nutricional 

desarrollados bajo la iniciativa 

de Team Nutrition del 

Departamento de Agricultura 

de los Estados Unidos en: 

https://teamnutrition.usda.gov.

Mayo 2018 · FNS474C-S

USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidades.
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41389

MICHAEL WAYNE HALEY,

Petitioner-Appellee,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, 

Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the Untied States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

__________________________________________

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the United

States Supreme Court by an Opinion entered May 3, 2004, in 124 S.Ct. 1847, 1852 (2004), held that

a federal court faced with allegations of actual innocence, whether of the sentence or of the crime

charged, must first address all nondefaulted claims of comparable relief and other grounds for cause

to excuse the procedural default. Dretke and the State of Texas conceded before the Supreme Court
2

that Haley has a viable and significant ineffective assistance of counsel claim, success on the merits

would give respondent all ofthe reliefthat he seeks, i.e., re-sentencing, and also would provide cause

to excuse the procedural default of his sufficiency of the evidence claim, and that the State will not

reincarcerate Haley during the pendency of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly,

the judgment ofthis court, 306 F.3d 257, was vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings

consistent with its opinion. It is hereby ordered that this case be remanded to the district court for

further proceedings to expeditiously resolve Haley’s claim.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0001479

09-FEB-2015

07:58 AM
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40954

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NORBELIO CAMPOS-LAGUNAS, also known as Oscar Campos-Laguna,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-486-ALL

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The federal public defender appointed to represent Norbelio CamposLagunas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Campos-Lagunas has filed a

response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and CamposLagunas’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 23, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40954

2

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.
III 

Calendar No. 154 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 132 

Recognizing the Civil Air Patrol for 65 years of service to the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 28, 2007 

Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. 

WARNER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. WEBB, and Mr. 

CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

MAY 17, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Civil Air Patrol for 65 years of service 

to the United States. 

Whereas the Civil Air Patrol was established on December 1, 1941, in the Office of Civilian Defense; 

Whereas during World War II the volunteer units of the 

Civil Air Patrol conducted search and rescue missions, provided air transportation for military personnel and cargo, towed targets for the training of 

Army Air Corps gunners, and patrolled the coasts of 

the United States searching for enemy submarines; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

SRES 132 RS 

Whereas by the end of World War II the Civil Air Patrol 

had flown more than 500,000 hours, sunk 2 German 

U-boats, and saved hundreds of crash victims; 

Whereas on July 1, 1946, the Civil Air Patrol was chartered by the United States as a nonprofit, benevolent 

corporation; 

Whereas on May 26, 1948, the Civil Air Patrol was permanently established as a volunteer auxiliary of the 

United States Air Force; 

Whereas since 1942 the cadet programs of the Civil Air 

Patrol have trained more than 750,000 youth, providing them with leadership and life skills; 

Whereas since 1942 the Civil Air Patrol has flown more 

than 1,000,000 hours of search and rescue missions, 

saving several thousand lives; and 

Whereas since 1951 the aerospace education programs of 

the Civil Air Patrol have provided training and educational materials to more than 300,000 teachers, 

who have educated more than 8,000,000 students 

about aerospace: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the Civil Air Pa2 trol for 65 years of service to the United States. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 154 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 132 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Civil Air Patrol for 65 years of 

service to the United States. 

MAY 17, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001092479
<NAME> TRIAD HOSPITALS HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              82
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      275
<ALLOWANCES>                                       136
<INVENTORY>                                         33
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   356
<PP&E>                                           1,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                     550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              121
<BONDS>                                            544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,315
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   614
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   129
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     18
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (9)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  9
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         9
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 27, 2017

Order 

Clerk

October 27, 2017

154360(65)

MICHAEL MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 154360

v COA: 328240 

Kalamazoo CC: 2013-000485-NO

MILHAM MEADOWS I LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP and MEDALLION

MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Insurance Alliance of Michigan to 

extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief will be 

accepted for filing if submitted on or before November 14, 2017.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       41,882
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      4,032
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          35,558
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        90,076
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,548
<COMMON>                                         7,357
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           38
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             29,765
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  37,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            41,990
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               3,600
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       25
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  88,773
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  171,548
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       67,456
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             3,530
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      56,850
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      60,380
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          7,076
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,166
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   8,242
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,236
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,006
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    4,006
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           5,295
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.48


</TABLE>
DENY; and Opinion Filed February 9, 2017
. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00132
- CV No. 05
- 17
- 00133
- CV
IN RE SENRICK WILKER SON , Relator Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F10
- 01183 and F10
- 01184 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Schenck Before the Court is relator’s January 30, 201 7 “motion for nihil dicit default judgment” i n which he requests that the Court order the trial court to issue a bench warrant to transport the relator to Dallas County so that he can attend an evidentiary hearing that has not yet been scheduled and to app oint counsel. We treat relator’ s motion as a petition for writ of mandamus. To be entitled to a writ of mandamus in a criminal case, the relator must show that (1) he has no other adequate legal remedy to redress his alleged harm and that (2) what he see ks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). The relator also must provide the court with a r ecor d sufficient to establish hi s right to
mandamus relief. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3( k ), 52.7(a). Relator has not established his right to
mandamus relief.– 2

– Accordingly, we deny the relief requested.

170132F.P05 / David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**


Return
        to Main Document
 
 **EXPRESS
        SYSTEMS CORPORATION.**
 **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 Express Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
            Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
            and
            Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randle Barrington-Foote,
            President, CEO, and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
            ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
            of 2002,
            that to 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 result of operations of
                    the
                    Company.  
 
 /s/
            Randle Barrington-Foote
 Randle
            Barrington-Foote
 President,
            CEO, and Director
 August
            14, 2006
#### § 458.70 Administrative Law Judge.

Each enforcement proceeding instituted pursuant to this part shall be conducted before an Administrative Law Judge designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Department of Labor except, however, that when the Administrative Law Judge approves a stipulated agreement for appropriate remedial action, he shall prepare his recommended decision and order adopting that agreement and transfer the case to the Administrative Review Board. The Administrative Review Board may order the remedial action set forth in the stipulated agreement or take such other action as it deems appropriate.

[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980; 45 FR 28322, Apr. 29, 1980. Redesignated at 50 FR 31311, Aug. 1, 1985, as amended at 78 FR 8026, Feb. 5, 2013; 81 FR 33389, May 26, 2016]
#### § 5.23 The statutory provisions.

Pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended and codified at 40 U.S.C. 3141(2), the term “prevailing wages” and similar terms include the basic hourly rate of pay and, for the listed fringe benefits and other bona fide fringe benefits not required by other law, the contributions irrevocably made by a contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or third party pursuant to a bona fide fringe benefit fund, plan, or program, and the costs to the contractor or subcontractor that may be reasonably anticipated in providing bona fide fringe benefits pursuant to an enforceable commitment to carry out a financially responsible plan or program, which was communicated in writing to the affected laborers and mechanics. Section 5.29 discusses specific fringe benefits that may be considered to be bona fide.

[88 FR 57744, Aug. 23, 2023]
§ 531.4 Making determinations of “reasonable cost.” ( a ) *Procedure.* Upon his own motion or upon the petition of any interested person, the Administrator may determine generally or particularly the “reasonable cost” to an employer of furnishing any employee with board, lodging, or other facilities, if such board, lodging, or other facilities are customarily furnished by the employer to his employees. Notice of proposed determination shall be published in the Federal Register, and interested persons shall be afforded an opportunity to participate through submission of written data, views, or arguments. Such notice shall indicate whether or not an opportunity will be afforded to make oral presentations. Whenever the latter opportunity is afforded, the notice shall specify the time and place of any hearing and the rules governing such proceedings. Consideration shall be given to all relevant matter presented in the adoption of any rule.
( b ) *Contents of petitions submitted by interested persons.* Any petition by an employee or an authorized representative of employees, an employer or group of employers, or other interested persons for a determination of “reasonable cost” shall include the following information: ( 1 ) The name and location of the employer's or employers' place or places of business;
( 2 ) A detailed description of the board, lodging, or other facilities furnished by the employer or employers, whether or not these facilities are customarily furnished by the employer or employers, and whether or not they are alleged to constitute “wages”;
( 3 ) The charges or deductions made for the facility or facilities by the employer or employers;
( 4 ) When the actual cost of the facility or facilities is known an itemized statement of such cost to the employer or employers of the furnished facility or facilities;
( 5 ) The cash wages paid;
( 6 ) The reason or reasons for which the determination is requested, including any reason or reasons why the determinations in § 531.3 should not apply; and
( 7 ) Whether an opportunity to make an oral presentation is requested; and if it is requested, the inclusion of a summary of any expected presentation.
Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com

Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Mark E. McKinnon

703.336.8708

EMAIL ADDRESS

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

January 30, 2015

Re: Additional Information Filed in Support of Phoenix Air UNMANNED, LLC

Section 333 Petition for Exemption (Docket No. FAA-2014-0692)

Gentlemen:

As you are aware, this office represents Phoenix Air UNMANNED, LLC (Phoenix Air 

UNMANNED") regarding the above-referenced Petition for Exemption, in which Phoenix Air 

UNMANNED seeks regulatory relief to operate small unmanned aircraft system ("sUAS") for 

commercial purposes. Please accept this letter as confirmation that a copy of the Phoenix AIR

UNMANNED UAS Operations Manual, which contains proprietary and confidential 

information, was hand-delivered to Mr. Troutman at the FAA Office of Aviation Safety, Airmen 

and Airspace Rules Division, on January 29, 2015. 

If you have any other questions, or need any additional information to process this 

exemption request, please do not hesitate to call.

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

/s/ Mark E. McKinnon 

Mark E. McKinnon, Esq.