alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jack Speight (Wyoming Bar No. 4-0983) 

4021 Snyder Ave 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

307.635.1239 [Tel.] 

jbspeight@gmail.com 

Benjamin T. Barr 

10737 Hunting Lane 

Rockville, MD 20850 

202.595.4671 [Tel.] 

benjamin.barr@gmail.com 

Stephen R. Klein 

Wyoming Liberty Group 

1902 Thomes Ave, Ste. 201 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

307.632.7020 [Tel.] 

stephen.klein@wyliberty.org 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING 

____________________________________ 

 ) 

FREE SPEECH, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 12-CV-127-S 

) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Case 2:12-cv-00127-SWS Document 44 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 3 Case 2:12-cv-00127-SWS Document 43 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 3
Notice is hereby given that Free Speech, plaintiff in the above named case, hereby appeals to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from an order denying preliminary 

injunction entered in this action on October 3, 2012. See Docket Nos. 41–42. 

Date: October 19, 2012 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Stephen Klein 

Stephen R. Klein 

Wyoming Liberty Group 

1902 Thomes Ave., Ste. 201 

stephen.klein@wyliberty.org 

307.632.7020 [Tel.] 

Benjamin T. Barr 

10737 Hunting Lane 

Rockville, MD 20850 

202.595.4671 [Tel.] 

benjamin.barr@gmail.com 

Jack Speight 

4021 Snyder Ave 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

307.635.1239 [Tel.] 

jbspeight@gmail.com 

Attorneys for Free Speech 

Case 2:12-cv-00127-SWS Document 44 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 3 Case 2:12-cv-00127-SWS Document 43 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on October 19, 2012, I the below listed persons received copies of 

this document by electronic mail via Electronic Case Filing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b)(2)(E): 

Anthony Herman 

Federal Election Commission

aherman@fec.gov

Erin Chlopak 

Federal Election Commission

echlopak@fec.gov

David Kolker 

Federal Election Commission

dkolker@fec.gov

Lisa Stevenson 

Federal Election Commission

lstevenson@fec.gov

Nicholas Vassallo 

United States Attorney’s Office

nick.vassallo@usdoj.gov

/s/ Stephen Klein 

Stephen Klein 

Case 2:12-cv-00127-SWS Document 44 Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 3 Case 2:12-cv-00127-SWS Document 43 Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 3
§ 681.11 What happens once an answer is filed? ( a ) When the reviewing official receives an answer, he or she must file concurrently, the complaint and the answer with the ALJ, along with a designation of NSF's representative.
( b ) When the ALJ receives the complaint and the answer, the ALJ will promptly serve a notice of hearing upon the defendant and the NSF representative, in the same manner as the complaint, which is described in § 681.8. The notice of oral hearing must be served within six years of the date on which the claim or statement is made.
( c ) The notice must include: ( 1 ) The tentative date, time, and place of the hearing;
( 2 ) The legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is being held;
( 3 ) The matters of fact and law to be asserted;
( 4 ) A description of the procedures for the conduct of the hearing;
( 5 ) The name, address, and telephone number of the defendant's representative and the representative for NSF; and
( 6 ) Such other matters as the ALJ deems appropriate.
#### § 630.301 [Reserved]
#### § 701.1 Establishment.

The United States Commission on Civil Rights (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) is a bipartisan agency of the executive branch of the Government. The predecessor agency to the present Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 71 Stat. 634. This Act was amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1960, 74 Stat. 86; the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241; by 81 Stat. 582 (1967); by 84 Stat. 1356 (1970); by 86 Stat. 813 (1972); and by the Civil Rights Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 1067. The present Commission was established by the United States Commission on Civil Rights Act of 1983, 97 Stat. 1301, as amended by the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 4339. The statutes are codified in 42 U.S.C. 1975 through 1975d. (Hereinafter, the 1994 Act will be referred to as “the Act.”)
#### John J. Smith, Respondent, *v.*Brown Brothers Company, Appellant.

*Smith*v. *Brown Brothers Co.,*128 App. Div. 910, appeal dismissed

(Submitted October *7,*1909;

decided October 26, 1909.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 14, 1908, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a change of venue.

The following question was certified, viz.: *“*In determining the defendant’s motion to change the place of trial should the court consider the convenience of plaintiff’s witnesses residing in Canada? ”

*James 8. Havens*for appellant.

*Vernoti Oole*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs, upon the ground that the answer to the question certified to us does not necessarily determine as a matter of law whether the order should have been granted or denied ; no opinion.

•Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
# EUR-Lex - 52008AP0200 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52008AP0200

**Comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 May 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Decision 85/368/EEC on the comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States of the European Community (COM(2007)0680 — C6-0398/2007 — 2007/0234(COD)) **

*
Official Journal C 279 E , 19/11/2009 P. 0119 - 0119 *

Comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States ***I

P6_TA(2008)0200

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 May 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Decision 85/368/EEC on the comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States of the European Community (COM(2007)0680 — C6-0398/2007 — 2007/0234(COD))

(2009/C 279 E/26)

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0680),

- having regard to Articles 251(2) and 150(4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0398/2007),

- having regard to Rule 51 and Rule 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0132/2008),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

--------------------------------------------------
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 annual report of Hong Kong Highpower Technology, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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 the Company.




March
      30, 2010
              
              /s/ Dang
      Yu PanDang
      Yu PanChairman
      of the Board and
                Chief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




March
      30, 2010
              
              /s/ Henry
      NganHenry
      NganChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### § 301.14 Administrative review of certain administrative decisions.

Any State dissatisfied with a determination of the Director pursuant to § 301.13 (e) or (f) with respect to any plan or amendment may, within 60 days after the date of receipt of notification of such determination, file a petition with the Regional Office asking the Director for reconsideration of the issue of whether such plan or amendment conforms to the requirements for approval under the Act and pertinent Federal requirements. Within 30 days after receipt of such a petition, the Director shall notify the State of the time and place at which the hearing for the purpose of reconsidering such issue will be held. Such hearing shall be held not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days after the date notice of such hearing is furnished to the State, unless the Director and the State agree in writing on another time. The hearing procedures contained in 45 CFR part 213 applicable to § 201.4 of this title shall apply to reconsiderations brought under this section. A determination affirming, modifying, or reversing the Director's original decision will be made within 60 days of the conclusion of the hearing. Action pursuant to an initial determination by the Director described in such § 301.1 (e) or (f) that a plan or amendment is not approvable shall not be stayed pending the reconsideration, but in the event that the Director subsequently determines that his original decision was incorrect he shall certify restitution forthwith in a lump sum of any funds incorrectly withheld or otherwise denied.
§ 205.57 Maintenance of a machine readable file; requests for income and eligibility information. A State plan under title I, IV—A, X, XIV, or XVI (AABD) of the Social Security Act must provide that: ( a ) The State agency will maintain a file which is machine readable, i.e., which is maintained in a fashion that permits automated processing, and which contains the first and last name and verified social security number of each person applying for or receiving assistance under the plan.
( b ) The State agency will use this file to exchange data with other agencies pursuant to § 205.55.
[51 FR 7216, Feb. 28, 1986]
#### Stevens, et al. v. Young, et al.

(Decided October 8, *1918.)*

Appeal from Anderson Circuit Court.

Elections—Contest—Failure of Voters to Present Certificates— Throwing Out of Precincts—Effect on an Election.—Where sub*543stantially all the votes in two precincts were illegal because the voters failed to present or to offer to present their certificates of registration, the precincts will be thrown out, and if this does not affect the result, the election will be upheld.

L. H. CARTER and F. R. FELAND for appellants.

EDWARD C. O’REAR, J. C. JONES and STANLEY TRENT for appellees.

Opinion of the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

This is the second appeal of this case. The first appeal was dismissed because the special term at which the judgment was rendered was not regularly called and the judgment was therefore void. Stevens v. Young, 180 Ky. 154. On the return of the case, it was redoeketed and tried, and the petition again dismissed.

The suit was brought to contest the local option election held in. Anderson county on October 1, 1917, which resulted in a majority of 231 in favor of the “drys.” The only ground of contest that is seriously urged is that the majority of the voters in the East Lawrenceburg and Duncan precincts, in the city of Lawrenceburg, were permitted to vote without presenting or offering to present their certificates. The evidence on this question is not very definite or satisfactory; but if we assume, as is contended by contestants, that substantially all of the voters in these two precincts failed to comply with the law in the respect indicated, and that for this reason their votes were illegal, we could go no further than to hold that the two precincts should be thrown out. If this be done, the “drys” will still have a clear majority. That being true, the ground relied on is not sufficient to affect the result, and affords no basis for holding that there was a “wet” majority or for setting aside the entire election.

Judgment affirmed.
Meeting Record | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_07312013b [8/20/2013 1:51:42 PM] Get Email Updates Contact Us

Home • The Administration • Office of Management and Budget

REGULATION & INFORMATION POLICY 

### About OIRA Information Policy Federal Collection of Information Regulatory Matters

Meetings and Outside Communication Reports to Congress For Agencies Statistical Programs & Standards 

# Meeting Record

Meeting Record Regarding: Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units Date: 7 / 31 / 2013

Name Affiliation Client (if applicable) Bob Wayland EPA Mary Johnson EPA
Alec Barron EPA
Paul Balzerak EPA Nathan Frey OMB/OIRA Stephon Fotis Van Nese Feldman ACCCE Jeffrey Blockzynski ACCCE Manny Ortiz Brownstein Hyatt ACCCE Paul Bailey ACCCE Vicky Sullivan ACCCE Ed Cichanowicz Counsltant ACCCE
Dana Lazarus OMB/OIRA
Bruce Rodan OSTP
Anne Finken CEQ Jim Laity OMB/OIRA

Meeting material provided to OMB ( pages, kb)

Document 1 (7 pages, 262 kb) Document 2 (7 pages, 123 kb) 

### About OMBlog The Budget Management Regulation & Information Policy Legislative Information Join OMB Contact OMB

Home Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Issues Civil Rights The Administration
President Barack Obama About the White House
Inside the White House Our Government
The Executive Branch Federal Register | Join OMB | FOIA | No FEAR Act | OMB Locator | USA.Gov | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Site SearchMeeting Record | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/2060_meeting_07312013b [8/20/2013 1:51:42 PM] The White House Blog Photos & Videos
Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Equal Pay Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Taxes Technology Urban and Economic Mobility Veterans Violence Prevention Women Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources

En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40826

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANGEL RODRIGUEZ-ESTRADA, also known as Jose Luis MartinezHernandez, also known as Angel Rodriguez, also known as Luis Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-1178-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Angel RodriguezEstrada 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). Rodriguez-Estrada has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40826 Document: 00513013128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-40826

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-40826 Document: 00513013128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
#### § 2552.22 What are the responsibilities of a sponsor?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70544, Aug. 30, 2024.

A sponsor is responsible for fulfilling all project management requirements necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Foster Grandparent Program as specified in the Act. A sponsor shall not delegate or contract these overall management responsibilities to another entity. CNCS retains the right to determine what types of management responsibilities may or may not be contracted.

[83 FR 64650, Dec. 17, 2018]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Florida Bank Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John R. Garthwaite, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 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: March 25, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ JOHN R. GARTHWAITE 
|                     |  |     |  | John R. Garthwaite     
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

In the interest of B.J.E., a child

, * From the 118th District

Court of Howard County,

Trial Court No. 48,724

.

No. 11

- 14

- 00141

- CV * November 14, 2014

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Holloway v. Stephens, appellant.

*Agency*— *unauthorized acts of agent—Evidence*— *when admissions of agent*, *not competent against principal.*

An agreement between plaintiff’s agent and defendant that plaintiff’s property under an execution upon a judgment in favor of defendant against plaintiff should be sold arid purchased by the agent and the proceeds less sheriff’s fees paid defendant, and that no restitution should be made in case of a reversal of the judgment on appeal, the agreement not being ratified or known to the principal, *held,*not binding on the principal and a restitution should be ordered. *Held,*also, that the sworn statements of the agent in a prosecution instituted against him by the principal and his unsworn admissions that the agreement had become known to the principal would not be evidence of that fact against the principal.

Motion by appellant for a re-argument of appeal from order directing restitution of moneys collected on execution. The action was by Thomas Holloway against Benjamin F. Stephens. The facts appear in the reports of the case in *2*N. T. Sup., at pp. 562 and 658.

*Titus B. Bldridge,*for appellant.

*Gray & Davenport,*for respondent.

Daniels, J.

The only points passed upon in the opinion, which are not believed to be important for publication in full,'appear fully in the head-note.

*Motion denied.*
#### § 400.90 Basis and scope.

This subpart sets forth requirements concerning grants to States under section 412(e) of the Act for refugee medical assistance (RMA), as defined at § 400.2 of this part.
§ 305.32 Requirements applicable to calculations. In calculating the amount of incentive payments or penalties, the following conditions apply: ( a ) Each measure is based on data submitted for the Federal fiscal year. The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1st of one year through September 30th of the following year.
( b ) Only those Current Assistance, Former Assistance and Never Assistance/other collections disbursed and those expenditures claimed by the State in the fiscal year will be used to determine the incentive payment payable for that fiscal year;
( c ) Support collected by one State at the request of another State will be treated as having been collected in full by each State;
( d ) Amounts expended by the State in carrying out a special project under section 455(e) of the Act will be excluded from the State's total IV-D dollars expended in computing incentive payments;
( e ) Fees paid by individuals, recovered costs, and program income such as interest earned on collections will be deducted from total IV-D dollars expended; and
( f ) States must submit data used to determine incentives and penalties following instructions and formats as required by HHS on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved reporting instruments. Data necessary to calculate performance for incentives and penalties for a fiscal year must be submitted to the Office of Child Support Enforcement by December 31st, the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year. Only data submitted as of December 31st will be used to determine the State's performance for the prior fiscal year and the amount of incentive payments due the States.