alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50647 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ant

v.
FABIO JUNIOR MARRIEL , Defendant

- Appell ee

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 1243

- 1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Government appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant

- Appellee
Fabio Junior Marriel ’s motion to dismiss the indictment charging him wi th illegal reentry following removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court
determined that the notice to appear in Junior Marriel ’s removal proceedings failed to specify a time and date for the removal hearing and ruled that the immigration court therefore lacked jurisdiction and that the removal order

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED December 3, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50647 Document: 00515220992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2019No. 19

- 50647

2 underlying the § 1326 charge in the indictment was void. The Government filed a n unopposed motion for summary disposition, contending that the district court’s dismissal of the indictment was erroneous in light of United States v. Pedroza

- Rocha , 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019).
In Pedroza

- Rocha , 933 F.3d at 492

- 93, this court reversed the distri ct court’s dismissal of an indictment charging the defendant with violating §
1326 . The district court had concluded that (1) the notice to appear was defective because it did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing and (2) the removal order w as thus void. Id. We determined that (1) the notice to appear was not deficient, (2) in any event the alleged deficiency would not deprive an immigration court of jurisdiction, and (3) § 1326(d) barred Pedroza

Rocha from collaterally attacking his notice to appear when he failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 496

- 98. The instant case is indistinguishable from Pedroza

- Rocha

. T he Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of [this] case,” so summary disposition is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We GRANT the Government’s motion for summary disposition, REVERSE the judgment of the district court , and
REMAND th is matter for further proceedings consistent herewith

. Case: 19-50647 Document: 00515220992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2019
§ 162.1201 Eligibility for a health plan transaction. The eligibility for a health plan transaction is the transmission of either of the following: ( a ) An inquiry from a health care provider to a health plan, or from one health plan to another health plan, to obtain any of the following information about a benefit plan for an enrollee: ( 1 ) Eligibility to receive health care under the health plan.
( 2 ) Coverage of health care under the health plan.
( 3 ) Benefits associated with the benefit plan.
( b ) A response from a health plan to a health care provider's (or another health plan's) inquiry described in paragraph (a) of this section.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OA14 (the
            "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as
            a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
            omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
            made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
            were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
            this report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
            other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
            period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act
            periodic reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s)
            required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and
            except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
            servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
            agreement(s) in all material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
            instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
            disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
      Bank of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 27, 2007


      /s/ Steve Bailey
      -----------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Hiram H. Lamport, Deceased. Mary C. Smedley, Appellant; Althea G. Jewell et al., Respondents.

*Matter of Lamport (Will),*134 App. Div. 954, affirmed.

(Argued January 6, 1910;

decided January 25, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 22,1909, which affirmed a decree of the New York County-Surrogate’s- Court denying probate of a paper propounded as the will of Hiram H. Lamport, deceased.

*William J. O'Sullivan*and *John S. Jenkins*for appellant.

*Edmund L.*Mooney, *Henry G. Gennert*and *Enos S. Booth*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs, and held that although the admission of the letter of the witness Rogers to the testator j o was erroneous, the error did not affect the result and should be disregarded under the provisions of section 2545 of the Code of Civil Procedure; no opinion.

Concur: Culler, Oh. J., Yarn, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ. Absent: Edward T. Bartlett, J.
EXHIBIT 31
I, Dan O'Brien, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Flexible Solutions
International Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:    November 14th 2003

/s/ DAN O'BRIEN

CEO and CFO
#### John T. Fay et al., Appellants, *v.*Herbert Lambourne et al., Respondents.

*Fay*v. Lambourne, 124 App. Div. 245, affirmed.

(Submitted November 15, 1909;

decided November 30, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February *1,*1908, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new trial in an action to restrain the use of a trade name.

*FranTdin Bien*for appellants.

. *Moses H. Grossman*and *Charles Golclzier*for respondents.

*576Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellants on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
#### § 410.1002 ORR care and placement of unaccompanied children.

ORR coordinates and implements the care and placement of unaccompanied children who are in ORR custody by reason of their immigration status.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. 1D. 20463

March 29. 2016
MEMORANDUM

TO: Patricia C. Orrock
Chief Compliance Officer

Thomas Hintermister
Assistant Staff Director
Audit Division

FROM: Adav Noti SA i am—
Acting Associate
General Counsel for Policy

Lorenzo Holloway 3b—
Assistant General Counsel
Compliance Advice

Danita C. Alberico Aj
Attorney

SUBJECT: Proposed Interim Audit Report on the Kind for Congress Committee (LRA 1018)
L INTRODUCTION

The Office of General Counsel has reviewed the proposed Interim Audit Report (“IAR”)
on the Kind for Congress Committee (“the Committee”). The [AR contains two findings: 1)
Failure to File 48-Hour Notices; and 2) Untimely Deposit of Receipts.' We address both
findings. If you have any questions, please contact Danita C. Alberico, the attorney assigned to
this audit.

: We recommend that the Commission consider this document in Executive Session because the Commission

may eventually decide to pursue an investigation of matters contained in the proposed IAR. 11 C.F.R. §§ 2.4(a) and
(bX6).


Comments to the [nterim Audit Report
Kind for Congress Committee

(LRA 1018)

Page 2

II. INCONSISTENT INFORMATION REGARDING DATES OF RECEIPT FOR
CONTRIBUTIONS

The proposed IAR finds that the Committec failed to timely deposit contributions totaling
$607,261. The proposed !AR also finds that the Committee did not file 48-hour notices for 16
contributions totaling $24,200 and untimely filed a 48-hour notice for one contribution totaling
$2,600. The Audit staff relied on the Committee's internal database and disclosure reports to
determine whether the Committee timely deposited contributions and to determine whether the
Committee was required to file 48-hour notices for certain contributions.

Both findings rely on the dates that the Committee received the contributions, but we
have inconsistent information regarding these dates. During audit fieldwork, the Committee said
that the dates of receipt listed in its internal database and disclosure reports were the dates the
treasurer received the contributions at its headquarters in Wisconsin. However, during the exit
conference, the Committee said that it was uncertain of the dates of receipt and that its internal
database and disclosure reports listed close approximations or estimations of the receipt dates.
But during Audit staff's review of the Committce’s internal controls, the Committee’s treasurer
said that the disclosure reports listed the dates of deposit, not the dates of receipt.

We do not belicve that the Committee’s database and disclosure reports should be
deemed reliable due to the disparate statements the Committee made during fieldwork, the exit
conference, and during the auditors’ review of the Committee’s internal controls. Since the
database and disclosure reports are unreliable, we believe that the dates on which the Committee
received contributions should be treated as if they are unknown under the Audit Program.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Federal Election Commission, 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

Citizens Club for Growth, Inc., 

 Defendant 

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civ. No. 05-1851 (RLW) 

ORDER

Based on findings and conclusions announced in open court on May 29, 2012, 

(Dkt. No. 50, pp. 30-36), the Defendant Citizens Club For Growth, Inc.’s Motion to 

Enforce Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

A. The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) hereby is FORMALLY 

REPRIMANDED as a sanction for violating explicitly clear prohibitions of the January 

17, 2007, Protective Order (Dkt. No. 35), by using for another case confidential 

documents that moving defendant Citizens Club for Growth, Inc., produced to the FEC 

during discovery in this action.

 B. Defendant’s requests for an order requiring destruction of the Confidential 

Information and for an award of legal fees are DENIED. 

 C. Defendant’s request for an order quashing the Speechnow.org subpoena 

and other discovery in connection with that case is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 The Commissioners of the Federal Election Commission are to be provided with 

copies of this Order and of the Court’s underlying findings and conclusions. Counsel for 

the FEC represent that this will occur. 

Case 1:05-cv-01851-RLW Document 52 Filed 06/25/12 Page 1 of 2
2

 This is a separate and appealable FINAL ORDER, resolving all pending matters 

in this case. 

SO ORDERED. 

 June 25, 2012. 

Robert L. Wilkins 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:05-cv-01851-RLW Document 52 Filed 06/25/12 Page 2 of 2
§ 615.1 Purpose. ( a ) This part sets forth policies and procedures to be followed when, in connection with a legal proceeding, an NSF employee is issued a demand to provide testimony or produce official records and information.
( b ) The provisions of this part are intended to promote economy and efficiency in NSF's programs and operations; minimize the possibility of involving NSF in controversial issues not related to its functions; maintain the impartiality of NSF among private litigants; and protect sensitive, confidential information and the deliberative process.
( c ) This part is not intended to and does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
( d ) This part is intended only to provide guidance for the internal operations of NSF, and is not intended to, and does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF F.F.

PETITION OF: D.F., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 330 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### § 400.140 Basis and scope.

This subpart sets forth requirements concerning formula allocation grants to States under section 412(c) of the Act for refugee social services.

[54 FR 5481, Feb. 3, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 33603, June 28, 1995]
#### § 402.23 Repayment.

The Department will order a State to repay amounts found not to have been expended in accordance with Federal law, regulations, the State's approved application, or terms of the State's grant. If a State refuses to repay such amounts, the Department may offset the amount against any other amount to which the State is or may become entitled under this part.
#### § 605.53 Drug and alcohol addicts.

A recipient to which this subpart applies that operates a general hospital or outpatient facility may not discriminate in admission or treatment against a drug or alcohol abuser or alcoholic who is suffering from a medical condition, because of the person's drug or alcohol abuse or alcoholism.
#### The Andrew Jergens Company, Respondent, *v.*John H. Woodbury et al., Appellants.

(Submitted January 10, 1910;

decided January 18, 1910.)

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 197 N. Y. 66.)
§ 261.54 Is a State subject to any other penalty relating to its work program? ( a ) If we determine that, during a fiscal year, a State has violated section 407(e) of the Act, relating to imposing penalties against individuals, we must reduce the SFAG payable to the State.
( b ) The penalty amount for a fiscal year will equal between one and five percent of the adjusted SFAG.
( c ) We impose a penalty by reducing the SFAG payable for the fiscal year that immediately follows our final determination that a State is subject to a penalty and our final determination of the penalty amount.
#### Hacker v. Ferrill, appellant.

*Statute of frauds—manner of charging accounts.*

Goods furnished *by*the plaintiff to and for the use of G., the defendant’s servant, were in fact delivered upon the credit of the defendant, and charged to him, although entered in the plaintiff’s books under the name of G. It was proved that during the previous year the defendant had paid bills of the plaintiff for supplies to G., furnished in a similar manner. *Held,*that the case was not within the statute of frauds ; and that a recovery by the plaintiff could be sustained. *Green*v. *JDisbrow,*7 Lans. 881.

*Held,*also, that if the defendant actually authorized the plaintiff to advance goods to G. on his (the defendant’s) credit, it was immaterial whether any arrangement between him and G., to that effect, existed.

Appeal from an order of the county court denying a new trial in an action originating in a justice’s court. The action was brought by George H. Hacker against Joseph Ferrill to recover for the price of meat furnished to defendant’s servant and at his request.

*Wm. B. Mills,*for appellant.

*Lyon & Hallock,*for respondent.

E. Darwin Smith, J.

The head-note states the substance of the points passed upon in the opinion. .

*Judgment affirmed.*
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed Ju ly 12 , 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00138

- CV

JONATHAN HENRY , Appellant

V.
LASHON HENRY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20 2 0

- 28372

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal is from a f

inal decree of divorce signed January 10, 2022 . No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to p ay for the
record.

On May 10, 2022 , notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s
intentio n to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided th i s court2

with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). No response was filed. On June 2, 2022
, appellant w as ordered to provide this court with proof of payment for
the record on or before June 17, 2022

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). I n the order, the court notified appellant that failure to comply with the court’s order would subject the appeal t o dismissal without further notice. See T ex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). No response was filed.

A ppellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the re c ord. We dismiss the appeal

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson.
#### Clews v. Rockford, Rock Island and St. Louis Railroad Company, appellant.

*Attachment—when allowed.*

In an action for damages for a breach of contract to deliver bonds, *held*(following *Lawton*v. *Beü,*84 How. 465), that an attachment under Code, § 229, could issue.

Appeal from an order at the special term denying a motion to vacate an attachment. The action was brought by Henry Clews and another against the Bockford, Bock Island and St. Louis Bailroad Company to recover the sum of $45,000 and interest, as *670damages for the breach of an alleged contract to deliver to plaintiff certain town bonds. The defendant is a foreign corporation located and incorporated in Illinois.

*Henry J. Seudder*and *James 8. Stearns,*for appellant.

*Crosby & Kent,*for respondents.

Lawrence, J.

The opinion holds that the case mentioned in the head-note, which states fully the point decided, disposes of this ease.

*Judgment affirmed.*