alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FORM 13. Informal Opening Brief (Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Cases) Form 13 (p. 1) 

July 2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

INFORMAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Case Number:

Short Case Caption:

Name of Appellant:

Instructions: Read the Guide for Unrepresented Parties before completing this 

form. Answer the questions as best as you can. Attach additional pages as needed 

to answer the questions. This form and continuation pages may not exceed 30 

pages.

Attach a copy of the opinion, order, and/or judgment of the Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims. You may also attach other record material as an appendix. Any 

attached material should be referenced in answer to the below questions. Please 

redact (erase, cover, or otherwise make unreadable) social security numbers or 

comparable private personal identifiers that appear in any attachments you submit.

1. Have you ever had another case in this court? Yes No

If yes, state the name and number of each case.

2. Did the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision involve the validity or

interpretation of a statute or regulation? Yes No

If yes, what are your arguments concerning those issues?
FORM 13. Informal Opening Brief (Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Cases) Form 13 (p. 2) 

July 2020

3. Did the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decide constitutional issues?

Yes No

If yes, what are your arguments concerning those issues?

4. Did the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims fail to decide any other issue

correctly? Yes No

If yes, how?

5. Are there other arguments you wish to make? Yes No

If yes, what are the arguments?
FORM 13. Informal Opening Brief (Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Cases) Form 13 (p. 3) 

July 2020

6. What action do you want this court to take in this case?

Date: _________________ Signature:

Name:
#### § 102-75.670 What responsibilities does DOI have after receiving the disposal agency's assignment letter?

After receiving the disposal agency's assignment letter, the Secretary of the Interior must provide the disposal agency with a Notice of Proposed Transfer within 30 calendar days. If the disposal agency approves the proposed transfer within 30 calendar days, the Secretary may proceed with the transfer. DOI must take all necessary actions to accomplish the transfer within 15 calendar days after the expiration of the 30-calendar day period provided for the disposal agency to consider the notice. DOI may place the applicant in possession of the property as soon as practicable to minimize the Government's expense of protection and maintenance of the property. As of the date the applicant takes possession of the property, or the date it is conveyed, whichever occurs first, the applicant must assume responsibility for care and handling and all risks of loss or damage to the property, and has all obligations and liabilities of ownership. DOI must furnish the disposal agency two conformed copies of deeds, leases, or other instruments conveying property under 40 U.S.C. 550(e) and related documents containing reservations, restrictions, or conditions regulating the future use, maintenance or transfer of the property.
No. 11-9185.

#### Hoffner *v.*Varano, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 99.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 
18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of E-LOAN, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: November 14, 2002

/s/ Matthew Roberts

Matthew Roberts
Chief Financial Officer

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4457 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4457

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
 to provide special look-back treatment for emergency appropriations, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 1994

   Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred jointly to the Committees on Government Operations and Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
 to provide special look-back treatment for emergency appropriations, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF EMERGENCY RULE.

    Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 is repealed.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL LOOK-BACK TREATMENT FOR EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 251(a)(5) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting ``(A)'' before ``If'' and 
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(B) If an appropriation that the President designates as 
        emergency requirements and the Congress so designates in 
        statute is enacted for the fiscal year in progress and that 
        causes a breach within a category for that year (after taking 
        into account any sequestration of amounts within that 
        category), the discretionary spending limits for the next 
        fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount or amounts of that 
        breach.''.

                                 <all>
```
PUBLIC LAW 111–290—DEC. 4, 2010 124 STAT. 3063 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 101: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Dec. 1, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 2, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–290 

111th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111–242) is amended 

by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting 

‘‘December 18, 2010’’. 

Approved December 4, 2010. 

Ante, p. 2608. 

Dec. 4, 2010 

[H.J. Res. 101] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
Williams . Renee (OST) pcCk ^ ^r-ZlST-Z^^f-^^ / 

Subject: FW: CZN critical service ' . :: - - ; 

From: Akgrinde@aol.com [mailto:Akgrinde@aol.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:46 AM 

To: Little, Cynthia M (DOT) 

Subject: CZN critical service 

Cindie, 

I am writing in support of maintaining critical air service for Chisana. Altliough there is a relatively small year round 

population, those people depend heavily on air services. Additional, many seasonal property owner part time residents 

depend on these services. I own a cabin in Chisana and would be directly impacted if there was a reduction in services. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Regards 

Dave Grinde 

PO Box 771702 

Eagle River 

Alaska 

(907) 688-8088
{"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":"17-2471: UNISONE STRATEGIC IP, INC. v. LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"T1qXFEncT7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2018-17-2471-unisone-strategic-ip-inc-v-life-technologies-corporation-rule-36-judgment-17-2471-rule_36_judgment-12-10-2018-1\/\">17-2471: UNISONE STRATEGIC IP, INC. v. LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2018-17-2471-unisone-strategic-ip-inc-v-life-technologies-corporation-rule-36-judgment-17-2471-rule_36_judgment-12-10-2018-1\/embed\/#?secret=T1qXFEncT7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-2471: UNISONE STRATEGIC IP, INC. v. LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"T1qXFEncT7\" 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":"Opinions\/Orders posted: UNISONE STRATEGIC IP, INC. v. LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-2471 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 60-2.18 [Reserved]
46562.

#### SHAHAN et al. v. SCOTT et al.

(377 SE2d 859)

Marshall, Chief Justice.

This case is here on certiorari. *Shahan v. Scott,*189 Ga. App. 514 (376 SE2d 221) (1988). Certiorari was granted for the purpose of determining whether, under the service-of-process provisions of the Long Arm Statute, OCGA § 9-10-94, the mode of service of process utilized in a case must be authorized by the laws of the state in which service has been made.

However, the Long Arm Statute concerns the exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-residents. OCGA § 9-10-91. Here, the record shows that under unwithdrawn statements in the plaintiffs’ pleadings, the defendants are alleged to be residents of Georgia and, therefore, must be treated as such. E.g., *Martin v. Pierce,*140 Ga. App. 897, 898-899 (232 SE2d 170) (1977).

Service of process outside the state upon parties defendant who are state residents is subject to the service-of-process requirements of the Civil Practice Act, OCGA § 9-11-4, and not the Long Arm Statute. Cf. OCGA § 9-10-91, with OCGA § 9-11-4 (e)(2).

In this case, the Court of Appeals held that service of process was insufficient under both the Civil Practice Act and the Long Arm Statute, and, therefore, the trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process.

*173Decided April 6, 1989.

*Hill & Henry, William Ralph Hill, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Campbell & Campbell, Douglas M. Campbell,*for appellees.

We agree that service was insufficient under OCGA § 9-11-4 (e)(2), which is the provision in the Civil Practice Act which requires that service of process upon state residents located outside the state shall be made “in person.”

As previously stated, the Long Arm Statute is inapplicable here by reason of the unwithdrawn allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint that the defendants are state residents. In this posture, we vacate the writ of certiorari, which was issued for the purpose of determining the now mooted question concerning the sufficiency of service under the Long Arm Statute. Further, the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process remains undisturbed, since the sufficiency of service here is governed by the Civil Practice Act, and the Court of Appeals correctly held that service of process in this case was insufficient thereunder.

*Writ vacated.*

*All the Justices concur.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.1523 Reply.

Within 15 days after service of an answer, the applicant may file a reply. If the reply is based on any alleged facts not already in the record of the proceeding, the applicant shall include with the reply either supporting affidavits or a request for further proceedings under § 1.1526.
{"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":"2022-1716: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1N1uXxhvsn\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1716-in-re-universal-electronics-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2022-1716: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1716-in-re-universal-electronics-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=1N1uXxhvsn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2022-1716: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"1N1uXxhvsn\" 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: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2022-1716 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
C \ r • PI r 11 1 :6J‘EltA1

.

1 4a IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 22-0439
MAYNARD WHITEMAN,

Petitioner,

v. JASON VALDEZ, Yellowstone County Detention Center,

Respondent. 

### AUG 30 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Maynard Whiteman petitions this Court for habeas corpus relief, indicating illegal incarceration because he claims he has been in custody for more than 200 days. He maintains that someone else committed the offenses and that the evidence has been tampered with. Whiteman also raises claims concerning his arrest and alleges that $215 and his phone are missing. He seekshis immediaterelease. Available electronic records indicate that Whiteman has two sentences from criminal cases,originatingin2014 and2017,inboththeYellowstone CountyandRichland County District Courts. The Board of Pardons and Parole (Board) granted Whiteman parole on those sentences on April 12, 2021, placing him with the Department of Corrections (DOC). Whiteman was arrested and chargedwith felonypossession with intentto distribute in December 2021. We secured a copy of his recent case's docket sheet from the Yellowstone County District Court. On December 13, 2021, the State filed its charging documents, and the District Court held an arraignment the next day. The court imposed a bond of$15,000 aswell asa GPS requirement. The court also appointed counsel from the Office ofPublicDefender for Whiteman. Even though the court issued a ReleaseOrder, ithas no consequencehere. Because Whiteman was a parolee when he was arrested, the DOC may hold him until the Board 08/30/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0439holds a revocation hearing. Sections 46-23-1024, and -1025, MCA. He may also be held

on no bond. Section 46-23-1024(6), MCA. Whiteman has not demonstrated illegal incarceration. Section 46-22-101(1),MCA. The causes ofhis incarceration are due to his pending criminal case as well as the DOC's hold. He is not entitled to release. Whiteman retains the remedy of appealing any conviction and sentence with this Court. Section 46-20-104(1), MCA. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Whiternan's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED andDISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record; to Maynard Whiteman personally;and to Terry Halpin, Clerk ofDistrict Court, Yellowstone County, under Cause No. DC 2021-1569, for further distribution to the presiding District Court Judge and counsel ofrecord in the underlying proceeding.

DATED this (sca} ofAugust, 2022.

ChiefJustice



# A.M 211,.
No. 11-1195.

#### Gardner *v.*Kappos, Director, Patent and Trademark Office.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1





Section 1350


CERTIFICATION








The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended September 27, 2009 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d))
and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.





Signed November 5, 2009.








/s/ John C. FanningJohn C. FanningChairman and Chief Executive Officer
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 12-415.2 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TRADE 

Phytosanitary Measures 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and COLOMBIA 

Effected by Exchange of Letters 

April 15, 2012 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
COLOMBIA 

Trade: Phytosanitary Measures 

Agreement effected by exchange of letters 

 April 15, 2012; 

 Entered into force April 15, 2012.
EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350 AS
                       ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10- Q of Environmental Solutions
Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period March 31st , 2011 (the
"Report"), Praveen Nair, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1). To my knowledge, 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.

                                                         DATE: MAY 16TH, 2011

                                                         /S/ PRAVEEN NAIR
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         PRAVEEN NAIR
                                                         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 51-7.5 Environmental information.

Interested parties may contact the Executive Director at (703) 603-7740 for information regarding the Committee's compliance with NEPA.

[56 FR 48986, Sept. 26, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 16777, Apr. 8, 1994]