alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E DWI N A DO NA Y ME ND OZ A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 71710 A ge nc yN o. A 094- 452- 765 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r6, 2010 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , R Y M E R , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E dw i n A donayM e ndoz a , anat i ve and c i t i z e n of E lS a l va dor , pe t i t i ons f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om an i m m i gr at i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c at i on f ora s y l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew 

# FI LED DE C 13 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 71710 2 f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e f a c tu a l f in d in g s . Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 542 F . 3d 738, 7 4 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. M endo zacont ends he suff er ed harm fr om gang m em bers du ri ng se vera l i nci dent s on acc ou ntof hi s i m pu t ed po l i t i ca lop i ni on . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up p o rts th e B I A ’s f

in d in g th at th e r o b b e r ie s w e r e c r im in a l in n atu r e o rto r e c ru it hi m , and thu s thatM endo zafa i l ed t o est abl i sh the re qu i re d n exus t o a prot ec t ed g r o u n d . Se e G o rm le

yv . A s h c r o

ft , 364 F . 3d 1172, 1177 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( r andom c r im in a l a c ts b o r e n o n e x u s to ap r o te c te dg r o u n d ) ; Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 542 F . 3d a t745- 46 ( r e

j e c t i ng pe t i t i one r ’ s c ont e nt i on that“ the gang he l d anys ortof b e lie f s y s te m th at th e yp e r c e iv e d[ p e titio n e r ] to o p p o s e ” ) ; P arussim ova v. Mukasey , 5 5 5 F .3 d7 3 4 , 7 4 0 - 4 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “[ t]h e R e a l I D A c t r e qu ir e s th a t a p ro tectedg ro u n dre p re se n t ‘ o n e c en tral re as o n ’ fo r a n as ylu m ap p li ca n t’ s pers ec ut i on ”) . A cc ordi ng l y, M endo za ’ s a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al c la im s f a il. See O choa v. G on zales , 40 6 F . 3d11 66 , 11 72 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { 

Convened January 3, 1989 

Adjourned November 22, 1989 

Convened January 23, 1990 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Tuesday, May 15, 1990 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J.STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
Calendar 

No. 

* 386 

* 389 

* 714 

Message 

No. 

576 

771 

1074 

1 

NOMINATIONS 

Nominee, Office, And Predecessor 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 

Clifford R. Oviatt, Jr., of Virginia, to be 

a Member of the National Labor Relations 

Board for the remainder of the term 

expiring August 27, 1993, vice Wilford W. 

Johansen, resigned. 

Dennis M. Devaney, of Maryland, to be a 

Member of the National Labor Relations 

Board for the term of five years expiring 

December 16, 1994. (Reappointment) 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Shirin Raziuddin Tahir-Kheli, of 

Pennsylvania, to be the Alternate 

Representative of the United States of 

America for Special Political Affairs in 

the United Nations, with the rank of 

Ambassador. 

Reported 

Bv 

Oct 4, 89 Mr. Kennedy, 

Committee on Labor and 

Human Resources, without 

printed report 

Do. 

Apr 5, 90 Mr. Pell, 

Committee on Foreign 

Relations, without printed 

report. 

*Signifies nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate.
Rockingham,

No. 5245.

#### Pacific & Atlantic Shippers, Inc. *v.*Allan A. Schier.

Submitted October 6, 1964.

Decided November 30, 1964.

*Perkins, Holland & Donovan*for the plaintiff.

*Shute & Engel*for the defendant.

Per curiam.

The record indicates that the plaintiff brought suit in Massachusetts against the defendant Schier and two other defendants, by a writ dated July 20, 1962, returnable to the District Court of Southern Essex on August 6, 1962, upon the same cause of action alleged in the action now before us. The action was thereafter removed to the Massachusetts Superior Court, where the plaintiff claimed a jury trial. On December 27, 1962, the action was remanded to the District Court, where on April 1, 1963 the plaintiff filed a dismissal as to the defendant Schier, without prejudice, reserving its rights against the remaining defendants.

*70In the action brought in this jurisdiction the following order was entered by the Superior Court under date of January 22, 1964: “The court finds that the action in this court against the defendant Allan A. Schier was commenced on Nov. 8, 1962. At that time there was an action pending between the same parties for the same cause in the District Court of Southern Essex and that action was not dismissed until April 1, 1963. In accordance with finding and opinion in *Gamsby*v. Ray, 52 N. H. 513 the present action in this court is abated and dismissed.”

The plaintiff correctly argues that the rule of *Gamsby*v. *Ray, 52*N. H. 513, has been modified by later decisions *(Hoyt*v. *Company,*80 N. H. 27, 31-32) and that the issue presented by a motion such as this is whether justice requires that the second action stand, or that it be dismissed as vexatious. *Dolber*v. *Young,*81 N. H. 157, 159; *Tinkham*v. *Railroad,*77 N. H. 111. Additionally, the present action is distinguishable from *Gamsby*v. *Ray, supra,*by the circumstance that here the previous action was pending in Massachusetts, where the liberal rule as to amendment relied on in *Gamsby*may not necessarily apply. Furthermore the Massachusetts action had been dismissed as to Schier before the New Hampshire action was dismissed.

A prior action pending in a foreign jurisdiction is ordinarily no ground for abatement, since a court of this jurisdiction cannot assure full protection of the plaintiff’s rights elsewhere. 1 Am. Jur. 2d 48, Abatement, Survival, and Revival, *s.*10; 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, *ss.*63, 65. No reason appears which would take the present action out of the usual rule.

Accordingly, the ruling of the Trial Court is. vacated^--and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with" principles here noted.

*Exception sustained; remanded.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
ATEL Capital Equipment Fund VIII, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dean L. Cash, President
and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 12, 2010



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                              
|Dean L. Cash                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer of      
|ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 170

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart E of part 170 appear at 80 FR 62755, Oct. 16, 2015.

#### § 170.545 [Reserved]
** **

**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We  have issuedour report dated  June 14, 2007 accompanyingthe consolidated financial statements and schedule  included in the Annual Report of HSWInternational, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reportsin the Registration Statements of HSW International, Inc. on Form S-8(File No. 333-147149) and Forms S-1 (File No. 333-147339 and333-149112).

 

**/s/ W.T. Uniack & Co. CPA’sP.C.**Atlanta, GeorgiaMarch 28, 2008

 

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

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 Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci
Jerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and Director

Date: November 14, 2007

---
§ 2105.6 What information should you include about your fee category? ( a ) A request should indicate your fee category (that is, whether you are a commercial-use requester, news media, educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or other requester as described in §§ 2105.36 and 2105.37).
( b ) If you submit a FOIA request on behalf of another person or organization (for example, if you are an attorney submitting a request on behalf of a client), the Agency will determine the fee category by considering the underlying requester's identity and intended use of the information.
( c ) If your fee category is unclear, the Agency may ask you for additional information (*see* § 2105.49).
1 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. 98-50512

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

$10,158.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Defendant,

CHARLES W. ROTHENBACH; ANNA MARIA ROTHENBACH;

JOSEPHINE LAWHON,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-97-CV-1488

- - - - - - - - - -

January 6, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Charles W. Rothenbach, Anna Maria Rothenbach, and Josephine

Lawhon (the Rothenbachs) appeal the striking of their answers and

motions to dismiss and the resulting default judgment in favor of

the United States. The district court acted on a motion from the

United States, finding that the Rothenbachs had failed to file a

verified claim as required by 28 U.S.C., Rule C(6) of the
Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. The

Rothenbachs also appeal the district court’s denial of the motion

to set aside the default judgment.

We have reviewed appellants’ brief and the record, and we

determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

striking the answer and amended answer and in granting the default

judgment. See United States v. $38,570 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d

1108 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. One 1988 Dodge Pickup, 959

F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. One 1978 Piper Navajo PA31 Aircraft, 748 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1984). We also decide that the

district court’s refusal to grant the Rothenbachs an extension of

time or to set aside the default judgment was not an abuse of

discretion when the failure to file a timely and correct verified

claim resulted from counsel’s lack of understanding of the law of

forfeitures. See Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc.,

6 F.3d 350, 356-357 (5th Cir. 1993)(motion to set aside dismissal).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1





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 Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Brochu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/    MICHAEL A. BROCHUMichael A. Brochu Chief Executive
Officer





August 13, 2002
§ 1336.64 Development of goals and strategies: Responsibilities of the Loan Administrator. ( a ) Prior to the approval of any direct loan under the RLF, the Loan Administrator will develop and obtain the Commissioner's approval for a clear and comprehensive set of goals and strategies for the RLF. The goals will specify the results the Loan Administrator expects to accomplish from the Revolving Loan Fund, define the RLF's role and responsibilities for potential users, and serve as the basis for the development of an organizational strategy and operating plan. The RLF strategies will provide the Loan Administrator with a sound understanding of the economic and market conditions within the Native Hawaiian community.
( b ) The following factors shall be considered by the Loan Administrator in developing the RLF's goals: ( 1 ) Employment needs of the local population;
( 2 ) Characteristics of the local economic base;
( 3 ) Characteristics of the local capital base and the gaps in the local availability of business capital;
( 4 ) Local resources for economic development and their availability; and
( 5 ) Goals and strategies of other local organizations involved in economic development.
( c ) The loan fund strategies developed by the Revolving Loan Fund must include the following: ( 1 ) *Business Targeting Strategy:* to determine which types of businesses are to be targeted by the loan fund. The Loan Administrator will develop procedures to ensure that the loans made are directed to Native Hawaiians.
( 2 ) *Financing Strategy:* to determine the types of financing the loan fund will provide;
( 3 ) *Business Assistance Strategy:* to identify the possible or potential management problems of a borrower and develop a workable plan for providing borrowers with the needed management assistance;
( 4 ) *Marketing Strategy:* to generate applications from potential borrowers and to generate the support and participation of local financial institutions;
( 5 ) *Capital Base Management Strategy:* to develop and allocate the financial resources of the fund in the most effective possible way to meet the need or demand for financing; and
( 6 ) *Accountability Strategy:* to develop policies and mechanisms to hold borrowers accountable for providing the public benefits promised (e.g. jobs) in return for financing; to ensure that, until expenditure, loan proceeds are held by the borrower in secured, liquid financial instruments; to hold borrowers accountable for upholding the commitments made prior to the loan; and to develop the methods used by the RLF to enforce these commitments.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         206,975
<SECURITIES>                                    79,660
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,380
<INVENTORY>                                     12,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               350,312
<PP&E>                                          38,499
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 555,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,956
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       580,584
<OTHER-SE>                                    (91,078)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   555,372
<SALES>                                         88,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,419
<CGS>                                           35,421
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               109,911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   925
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,205)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       786
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,991)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $(1.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(1.18)


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41120 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PEDRO LARA

- ROMO, also known as Hugo Lara , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 281

- 19

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Lara

- Romo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Lara

- Romo h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41120 Document: 00513472266 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016No. 15

- 41120

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is G RANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41120 Document: 00513472266 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
§ 2532.20 Special Demonstration Project for the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta of Alaska. ( a ) *Special Demonstration Project for the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta of Alaska.* The President may award grants to, and enter into contracts with, organizations to carry out programs that address significant human needs in the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region of Alaska.
( b ) *Application* — ( 1 ) *General requirements.* To be eligible to receive a grant or enter into a contract under paragraph (a) of this section with respect to a program, an organization must submit an application to the President at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as required.
( 2 ) *Contents.* The application submitted by the organization must, at a minimum— ( i ) Include information describing the manner in which the program will utilize VISTA volunteers, individuals who have served in the Peace Corps, and other qualified persons, in partnership with the local nonprofit organizations known as the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation and the Alaska Village Council Presidents;
( ii ) Take into consideration— ( A ) The primarily noncash economy of the region; and
( B ) The needs and desires of residents of the local communities in the region; and
( iii ) Include specific strategies, developed in cooperation with the Yupi'k speaking population that resides in such communities, for comprehensive and intensive community development for communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region.
§ 2525.280 What happens if an individual for whom AmeriCorps has disbursed education award funds withdraws or fails to complete the period of enrollment in a G.I. Bill approved program? ( a ) If an individual for whom AmeriCorps has disbursed education award funds withdraws or otherwise fails to complete a period of enrollment, the approved educational institution or training establishment that received a disbursement of education award funds from AmeriCorps must provide a pro-rata refund to AmeriCorps of the unused portion of the education award.
( b ) AmeriCorps will credit any refund received for an individual under paragraph (a) of this section to the individual's education award allocation in the National Service Trust.
SUPREME COURT.

#### Zina W. Alexander agt.. Austin M. Hard, Melville Frost and Silas B. Brown.

An action brought in the supreme court, in which there were two causes of action, and two issues according to the complaint and answer. The first involved the title to real property, and upon that issue, the defendants succeeded. The second, involved matters that a justice of the peace had jurisdiction to try, and upon that issue, the jury rendered a .verdict in favor of the plaintiff, for *five*dollars damages— *Held,*that the defendants were entitled to costs. Also *held,*that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs, for the reason that he was beaten upon the issue of title to real property ; and that the fact, that he demanded judgment in his complaint for *five*hundred, dollars damages, besides costs, did not entitle him to costs in the action upon a verdict in his favor for only $5 damages.

In the report of the above case on page 132 of this volume, the word “ not” in a sentence, should be struck out, so the sentence will be as follows: “ That the plaintiff could recover for *any loss of service*of his wife or infant children occasioned by reason of defendants assaulting and injuring them.”

Note—The plaintiff knew when be brought his action that he did not own the real property alleged to have been trespassed upon and injured, &c. Of course he knew be must get beat on that issue. There being nothing left in the complaint but what a justice of the peace might take jurisdiction—he was not justified in claiming $500 damages in his complaint, upon an issue which it was palpable he could not sustain, and certainly he was not justified in asking it on the other issues. This is the view we first took of it.—Rep.