alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ANITA FAY THOMAS,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1126

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0752-14-0008-I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Anita Fay Thomas petitions this court for review of the 

final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming her removal and rejecting her affirmative defense 

concerning reprisal for Equal Employment Opportunity 

(“EEO”) activity. The Department of Veterans Affairs now

Case: 24-1126 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2024
2 THOMAS v. DVA

moves to transfer to the United States District Court for 

the Middle District of Alabama, or in the alternative, to 

dismiss. According to the Department’s motion, Ms.

Thomas indicates that she “would like to continue with 

[her] pursuit of discrimination.” ECF No. 15 at 1. 

Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction 

over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of 

[5 U.S.C.] § 7702,” i.e., cases involving adverse actions appealable to the Board and allegations of covered discrimination. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

582 U.S. 420, 432 (2017); 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1); Diggs v. 

Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 670 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 

2011) (holding that the affirmative defense of retaliation 

for prior EEO activity “falls outside [of the court’s] jurisdictional reach”). Because Ms. Thomas is pursuing a case of 

discrimination here, we grant the motion and transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the Middle District of Alabama, where the employment action occurred. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion to transfer is granted to the extent that this 

case and all transmittals are transferred, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1631, to the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Alabama. 

February 20, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-1126 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2024
#### § 101.1001 Eligibility.

Any entity, other than one precluded by § 101.7 and by § 101.1003, is eligible for authorization to provide Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) under this subpart. Authorization will be granted upon proper application filed under the rules in this part.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.789 Reports regarding division of international telegraph communication charges.

Carriers engaging in international telegraph communication shall file reports in regard to the division of communication charges as required by part 43 of this chapter.
No. 11-9418.

#### Wilson *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth D. Denman, as Chief Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |                  |  |                                          
| |  | ---------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
| |  |                  |  | /s/ Kenneth D. Denman                    
| |  |                 
| |  | February 8, 2011 |  | Kenneth D. Denman Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave
Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anne Brennan, as Chief Financial Officer of Openwave Systems Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |                  |  |                                     
| |  | ---------------- |  | ------------------------------------
| |  |                  |  | /s/ Anne Brennan                    
| |  |                 
| |  | February 8, 2011 |  | Anne Brennan Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bank of Florida Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Tracy L. Keegan, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  |                            
|----- |  | ----------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: |  | May 6, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Tracy L. Keegan        
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Tracy L. Keegan,           
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Principal Financial Officer



28
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16732]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 27, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Avant Financial LLC, Syracuse, New York, to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 67.5 percent of the voting shares of 
Reliance Bank, White Plains, New York.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Cardinal Financial Corporation, Fairfax, Virginia; to merge with 
Heritage Bancorp, Inc., McLean, Virginia, and thereby indirectly 
acquire The Heritage Bank, McLean, Virginia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 27, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-16732 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
<PAGE>   2
                         [HAUSSER + TAYLOR LETTERHEAD]


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 (file number 333-33214), under the
Securities Act of 1933, of our report dated March 10, 2000 relating to the
balance sheets of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998,
and the related statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
the years then ended, which report appears in the report on Form 10-KSB of
Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.

                                                /s/ HAUSSER + TAYLOR LLP

                                                HAUSSER + TAYLOR LLP


Columbus, Ohio
March 29, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16828]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NV-930-1020-JL]


Public Meetings on the Great Basin Restoration Initiative

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Public Meetings on the Great Basin Restoration Initiative have 
been scheduled. The purpose of the meetings is to solicit public 
comment on this Initiative. The Great Basin Restoration Initiative will 
implement a set of actions in the Great Basin that will promote both 
plant community diversity and a structure that allows plant communities 
to be more resilient to disturbance and invasive species over the long 
term. The Initiative will increase the ecosystem stability of the Great 
Basin, and focus on getting the most work done in those areas with the 
most critical resource values and the highest potential for success 
through a common approach.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Public Meetings on the Great Basin Restoration Initiative have 
been scheduled for:

-- July 17 at the Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada, Field 
Office.
-- July 18 at the Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada, Field Office.
-- July 19 at the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office in 
Reno.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo Simpson, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Office of Communications, PO Box 
12000, Reno, Nevada 89520-0006 or telephone (775) 861-6586.

    Dated: June 21, 2000.
Robert E. Stewart,
Acting Chief, Office of Communications.
[FR Doc. 00-16828 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
#### IN THE MATTER OF PATRICK L. SWINDALL.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 750)

(387 SE2d 893)

Per curiam.

Patrick L. Swindall, a member of the State Bar of Georgia, having been convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on several felony counts which constitute grounds for disbarment under Rule 4-102 of the State Bar Rules, petitioned the State Disciplinary Board for voluntary suspension of his license to practice law. Under State Bar Rule 4-106, a lawyer convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude may be suspended from the practice of law until all appeal rights are terminated.

This court accepts the petition for voluntary suspension from the practice of law pending termination of Swindall’s appeal.

*Voluntary suspension of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*586Decided November 22, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Joe David Jackson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Robert G. Fierer,*for Swindall.
No. 11-9119.

#### Dawara *v.*Warren, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-1004.

#### LaFond *v.*Ammons.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2020-1270: KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"xTSvzPLrzW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2020-2020-1270-keynetik-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd-audio-uploaded\/\">2020-1270: KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2020-2020-1270-keynetik-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=xTSvzPLrzW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020-1270: KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"xTSvzPLrzW\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2020-1270 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
MEETING AGENDA

DOMTAR ASHDOWN MILL BART DISCUSSION

U.S. EPA Region 6 Offices, Dallas TX

December 16, 2014

10:00 a.m.

 Introductions

 Review of mill operations

 Review EPA Region 6 BART Recommendations presented during the November 10 th call

o Power Boiler #1

o Power Boiler #2

 Power Boiler #2 SO2 % Removal Standard

o Establish as a mass

‐ based limit

 Demonstrating compliance with BART requirements

 Timeline for Ashdown Mill BART Compliance

 Incorporating the FIP BART Requirements into the Mill’s Title V permit

 Status of Sierra Club petition

 Next Steps

o Region 6 timeline for the FIP

 Meeting Wrap up
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.957 Procedure with respect to amateur radio operator license.

Each candidate for an amateur radio license which requires the applicant to pass one or more examination elements must present the Volunteer Examiners (VEs) with a properly completed FCC Form 605 prior to the examination. Upon completion of the examination, the VEs will grade the test papers. If the applicant is successful, the VEs will forward the candidate's application to a Volunteer-Examiner Coordinator (VEC). The VEs will then issue a certificate for sucessful completion of an amateur radio operator examination. The VEC will forward the application to the Commission's Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, facility.

[63 FR 68935, Dec. 14, 1998]
No. 10-11184.

#### Sarabia *v.*Small, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
VII

Private Calendar No. 9

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 758

[Report No. 106–497]

For the relief of Nancy B. Wilson.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. ALLEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

FEBRUARY 14, 2000

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

For the relief of Nancy B. Wilson.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ENTITLEMENT TO WIDOW’S INSURANCE BENE4 FITS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of determining the

6 eligibility of Nancy B. Wilson, the wife of Alphonse M.

7 Wilson (social security number 271–18–9548), to widow’s
2

•HR 758 RH

1 insurance benefits under section 202(e) of the Social Secu2 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)), Nancy B. Wilson shall be

3 deemed to have been married to Alphonse M. Wilson for

4 a period of not less than 9 months immediately prior to

5 the day on which Alphonse M. Wilson died.

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) takes effect

7 on March 21, 1991.

8 (c) PAYMENT.—Any benefits to which Nancy B. Wil9 son is entitled for the period prior to the date of the enact10 ment of this Act shall be paid to her in a lump sum.

Private Calendar No. 

9

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 758

[Report No. 106–497]

A BILL

For the relief of Nancy B. Wilson.

FEBRUARY 14, 2000

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
46407.

#### DAVIS v. DAVIS.

(377 SE2d 850)

Marshall, Chief Justice.

In this case, the appellee, former wife, instituted an action against the appellant, former husband, for: (1) modification of the provisions for support of the parties’ minor child set out in the parties’ divorce decree; (2) modification of the former husband’s visitation rights with the minor child, also set out in the parties’ divorce decree; and (3) restoration of the former wife’s maiden name.

In the original divorce action in the DeKalb Superior Court, the former husband was the plaintiff, and the former wife was the defendant. Notwithstanding the uncontested fact that the former husband has become a resident of Gwinnett County, the instant action was filed by the former wife in the DeKalb Superior Court on the contested ground that venue in an alimony-modification action is based on the county of residence of the defendant in the original divorce and alimony suit.

In apparent agreement with this argument, the trial court denied the former husband’s motion for change of venue. Subsequently, the trial court entered final judgment modifying the child-support payment and visitation provisions of the divorce decree; the court below denied the former wife’s claim for relief in regard to restoration of her maiden name, on the ground that this claim should be asserted in separate action.

We granted the former husband’s application for discretionary appellate review of the denial of his motion for change of venue. Upon consideration, we reverse.

It has been firmly established that proper venue in an alimony-modification action is the county of residence of the party defendant in the modification action, and not the county wherein the divorce decree was rendered or the county of residence of the party defendant in the original divorce and alimony suit. *Tiller v. Tiller,*245 Ga. 27 (262 SE2d 819) (1980); *Bugden v. Bugden,*224 Ga. 517 (162 SE2d 719) (1968). See also *Buckholts v. Buckholts,*251 Ga. 58 (1) (302 SE2d 676) (1983). We do note, however, that in an alimony-modification action, visitation rights are subject to review and modification “on the motion of any party, or on the motion of the court.” OCGA § 19-9-1 (b). *Blalock v. Blalock,*247 Ga. 548, 550 (1) (277 SE2d 655) (1981); *Sampson v. Sampson,*240 Ga. 118 (239 SE2d 519) (1977).

Consequently, the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion for change of venue is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court with the direction that the trial court, pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 19.1 (253 Ga. at p. 829 et seq.) order the case transferred to the Gwinnett Superior Court, in which venue properly lies.

*Judgment reversed and case remanded.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*152Decided April 6, 1989.

*Dailey & Groover, Lewis M. Groover, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Arroyo & Associates, Stephen A. Gura, William H. Arroyo,*for appellee.
#### § 302-3.419 For what property may my agency pay property management services?

Your agency may only pay for the property from which you commuted to/from work on a daily basis at your previous official station.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-06, 76 FR 71889, Nov. 21, 2011]