alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jeremiah F. Lynch, Respondent, *v.*American Linseed Company, Appellant.

*Lynch*v. *American Linseed Go.,*133 App. Div. 438, affirmed.

(Argued January 25, 1909;

decided February 9, 1909.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 3, 1907, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover-for personal injuries alleged to have been received through defendant’s negligence.

*Frederick Hulse*for appellant.

*Richard J.*Donovan, *George M. Pinney, Jr.,*and *Herbert D. Cohen*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
Original,

No. 5987.

#### Manchester Education Association *& a. v.*Superior Court *& a.*

Filed September 3, 1969.

Argued and Decided September 4, 1969.

*McLane, Carleton, Graf, Greene & Brown*and *Jack B. Middleton,*and *JohnP. Griffith (Mr. Middleton*and *Mr. Griffith*orally), for the plaintiffs.

*J. Francis Roche,*city solicitor, orally for the city of Manchester.

*Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls {Mr. Philip G. Peters*orally), for the Board of School Committee of the Manchester School District.

Per curiam.

Petition for writ of prohibition by which the plaintiffs seek an order vacating and staying enforcement of a temporary injunction issued by the Superior Court on September 2, 1969 enjoining the plaintiffs herein and all public school teachers in the city of Manchester from engaging in or supporting a strike or work stoppage against the Manchester school system, from taking concerted action to strike against the system and ordering the officers and members of the executive board of the Manchester Education Association to instruct its members to report for work on Wednesday, September 3, 1969. A hearing on the merits of the city’s petition for injunction is to be held by the Superior Court on September 15, 1969.

“Prohibition is an extraordinary writ, the purpose of which *514is to prevent subordinate courts or other tribunals, officers or persons from usurping or exercising jurisdiction with which they are not vested. The grant of such a writ is within the discretion of this court and should be used with caution and forbearance and then only when the right to relief is clear.” *Hillsborough*v. *Superior Court,*109 N. H. 333, 334. Without passing on the contentions of any of the parties to the controversy we hold that a writ of prohibition should not issue in this case.

*Petition denied.*

Griffith, J., did not sit.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALWINDER SINGH SANGHERA;

HARJEET KAUR,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 07-74413

 08-70697

Agency Nos. A095-574-816

 A095-574-817

MEMORANDUM*

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Balwinder Singh Sanghera and

Harjeet Kaur, natives and citizens of India and permanent residents of the

Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

orders denying their motions to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under

FILED

JUL 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74413

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen or reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005) ,

and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review.

The BIA correctly construed petitioners’ November 14, 2007, motion as a

motion to reopen and reconsider. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 792-93 (BIA should

construe the motion based on its underlying purposes). 

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying the November 14, 2007,

motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law

in the BIA’s prior decision denying petitioners’ first motion to reopen. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir.

2001) (en banc). 

The BIA also acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ June 5, 2007,

and November 14, 2007, motions to reopen because in both instances the BIA

considered the evidence they submitted and acted within its broad discretion in

determining that the evidence was insufficient to toll the deadline or to warrant

reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of

a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to

law”).
3 07-74413

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that prior counsel

provided ineffective assistance because they failed to raise that issue before the

BIA and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See OntiverosLopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (court lacks jurisdiction to

review ineffective assistance of counsel claim not raised before the agency).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 74485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9652]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / 
Notices

[[Page 74485]]



BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 2 p.m.-3:15 p.m.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.
    Closed Meeting: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
(BBG) will meet in closed session to review and discuss a number of 
issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international 
broadcasting. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and 
personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating 
to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This 
meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose 
matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the 
interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 
U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature 
disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate 
implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)) 
In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal 
personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International 
Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Persons interested in obtaining more 
information should contact Carol Booker at (202) 203-4545.

    Dated: December 7, 2006.
Carol Booker,
Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. 06-9652 Filed 12-8-06; 10:06 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on O'Malley for President 

(OMFP) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certiiy that on July 10,2018, the Commission decided 

by a vote of 4-0 to approve the Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum 

on O'Malley for President (OMFP), as recommended in the Memorandum from 

the Chief Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated June 18,2018. 

Commissioners Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

! 

cJuL lOiZotr 

y Date Dayna C. Brown 

Secretary and Clerk of die Commission
Mark Zickrick 

421 N Huron Ave 

Pierre, SD 57501-2019 

December20, 2014 

Michael D. Gormas 

United States Department of Transportation Office of Aviation Analysis 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Gormas: 

I am writing as a concerned citizen of Pierre, SD, in regards to the US DOT Order #2014-9-1 0 requesting 

Essential Air Service proposals from airline operators to serve Pierre, South Dakota. This is a letter in support 

of Great Lakes Airlines. 

This past year has been very hard on smaller airlines because of the tremendous loss of pilots due to the 

drastic change in FAA regulations concerning pilot qualifications. Great Lakes Airlines lost a huge share of its 

flight crew, yet has done its best to continue to serve communities such as ours. We appreciate Great Lakes' 

baggage agreements and code sharing with major airlines Delta and United. 

It will be a step back in terms of convenience for air passengers to and from Pierre if they must fly an airline 

such as Aerodynamic, Inc., or Boutique Air. Neither of those airlines has a de-icing program, baggage 

agreements, a reservation system, ticketing agreements, or even airport rights in Denver or Minneapolis as 

Great Lakes does. 

I respectfully request your fair consideration of Great Lakes Airlines proposal. 

Regards, 

/s/ 

Mark Zickrick 

··· .. ·.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75734-75742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9746]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 07-08]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Brenda English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, 
(703) 601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 07-08 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, sensitivity of technology, and section 620C(d).

    Dated: December 11, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 75735]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18DE06.017


[[Page 75736]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18DE06.018


[[Page 75737]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18DE06.019


[[Page 75738]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18DE06.020


[[Page 75739]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18DE06.021


[[Page 75740]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18DE06.022


[[Page 75741]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18DE06.023


[[Page 75742]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18DE06.024

[FR Doc. 06-9746 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Exhibit 99

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 Pursuant to  18  U.S.C. Section  1350,  as adopted  by  Section 906  of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, D. Ronald Allen, the Chief Executive  Officer
 and Chief Financial  Officer of Integrated  Performance Systems, Inc.,  (the
 "Company"), hereby certify as follows:

 (1)   The  Company's Quarterly Report on S.E.C. Form 10-QSB for the  quarter
       ended  May  31,  2003,  as  filed with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
       Commission on July 28, 2003,  (the "Periodic  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 Periodic Report fairly presents,  in
       all   material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result   of
       operations of the Company.


                               /s/ D. Ronald Allen
                               ----------------------------------------
                               D. Ronald Allen, Chief Executive Officer
                               and Chief Financial Officer
# 2010 Executive Calendars

**

----

   The Executive Calendar is published by the Executive Clerk’s office in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. The calendar is published each day the Senate is in session. These calendars list executive business items such as unanimous consent agreements, resolutions, treaties, and nominations. The calendar is identified by the date published and a volume number, which both appear on the cover of the calendar. A final calendar is published at the end of each session of Congress. For a detailed summary of the sections of the Executive Calendar, see, About the Executive Calendar.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Angel Moreno Gonzalez, * From the 220 th District Court

of Comanche County,

Trial Court No. 00

- 01

- 02203

- CCCR

.

Vs. No. 11

- 17

- 00056

- CR * March 31 , 2017

T he State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance

with this court ’ s opinion, t he appeal is dismissed.
From: -Neil P. Reifl" <reifl@san(«eiT«ff.com> 

To: "SHThomas8fec.gov" <SHTTiomas@fTC.gov>, 

Cc: "zpacious@liTCgov" <zpacious@fbc.gov> 

Date: 02/18/2014 12:00 PM 

Subject: RE: Draft Final Audit Report - Nebrasiu Democratic Party - REMINDER: RESPONSE DUE TODAY FEB 18, 2014 

Show Details 

We do not 

Sent rn>inin>-Galaxy S*lll 

Original message 

From: zpacious@fec.gov 

Date:02/18/20I4 12:36 PM (GMT-05:00) 

To; "Neil P. ReifT' 

Cc: SHThomas@fec.gov 

Subject: RE: Draft Final Audit Report - Nebraska Democratic Party 

Mr. Reiff: 

Thank you for your prompt response. 

Would you please also let us know if your committee plans to request a hearing before the Commission? 

Thank you. 

Zuzana O. Pacious, CPE 

Audit Manager 

Federal Election Commission 

(202) 694-1347 

From: "Neii P. ReifT'<iaifl@sandierreiff.com> 

To: "SHThomas@fTCgov" <SHThomas@fTC.gov>, 

Cc: *zpacious@lTCgov" <zpacious@fec.gov> 

Date: 02/18/2014 12:00 PM 

Subject: RE: Draft Final Audit Report - Nebraska Democratic Party - REMINDER: RESPONSE DUE TODAY FEB 18, 2014 
We will not be providing any additional response thanks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRADLEY WARREN PUGH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 13-70565

Tax Ct. No. 1126-12

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Bradley Warren Pugh appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary

judgment in Pugh’s action challenging a federal tax lien. We have jurisdiction

under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo, Gladden v. Comm’r, 262 F.3d 851,

853 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.

FILED

DEC 4 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because Pugh failed to

raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had paid his outstanding

tax penalties, which were imposed after he filed a frivolous tax return. See 26

U.S.C. § 6702 (imposing penalties for filing frivolous tax returns); Parkinson v.

Comm’r, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (stating summary

judgment standard under Tax Court Rule 121(d), which is derived from Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56).

We reject as without merit Pugh’s contentions that the Tax Court failed to

create a proper record, expressed bias in favor of the Commissioner, and

committed other procedural errors.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-70565
#### § 400.26 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 3 (Friday, January 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 546-547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9978]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

[[Page 547]]

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank, as a part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and 
other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information 
collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is soliciting comments from the 
public concerning the proposed collection of information to (1) 
evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the paper 
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the 
information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of 
the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information 
collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and minimize the burden of 
collection of information on those who are to respond, including 
through the use of appropriated automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 
2007 to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to David Rostker, Office of Management 
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB, Room 
10202, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-3897.
    Titles and Form Numbers: Export-Import Bank of the United States 
Application for Long-Term Loan or Guarantee, EIB 95-10.
    OMB Number: 3048-0013.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Need and Use: The information requested enables the applicant to 
provide Ex-Im Bank, with the information necessary to determine 
eligibility for the loan and guarantee programs.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Respondents: Entities involved in the provision of financing or 
arranging of financing for foreign buyers of U.S. exports.
    Estimated Annual Respondents: 86 (revised).
    Estimated Time Per Respondent: 2.0 hours (revised).
    Estimated Annual Burden: 172 hours.
    Frequency of Response: When applying for a long-time preliminary or 
final commitment.

    Dated: December 27, 2006.
Solomon Bush,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-9978 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
**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**











Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of Opexa Therapeutics, Inc.
      (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2007
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








By:
      /s/
      LYNNE HOHLFELD


Lynne
      Hohlfeld


Chief
      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer








Date:
      November 29, 2007








**End
      of Filing**
§ 73.735-805 Advice and guidance on conflicts matters. ( a ) Whenever an employee has a question about the appropriate course of conduct to be followed in a matter that may involve an actual or apparent conflict of interest, he or she should immediately consult with his or her supervisor or a deputy ethics counselor, or both. If a supervisor who is consulted determines that the matter warrants further consideration, he or she may, in conjunction with the employee, submit the details of the matter, in writing, to the appropriate deputy ethics counselor. These details should include a description of: ( 1 ) The activity, relationship, or interest giving rise to the question posed by the employee;
( 2 ) The duties or official responsibilities of the employee(s) involved;
( 3 ) The nature of the actual or apparent conflict of interest; and
( 4 ) Any other information that may be helpful in reviewing the problem.
( b ) Upon receiving the submission of an employee or a supervisor, the deputy ethics counselor will develop any additional information about the matter as necessary, and will confer with the Department Ethics Counselor as appropriate. The Department Ethics Counselor and the head of the principal operating component or his or her designee will be informed of any serious violation of the standards of this subpart or any other conflict of interest law. Questions of first impression or other unusual matters shall be brought to the attention of the Department Ethics Counselor and the head of the principal operating component or his or her designee.
( c ) On the basis of all information gathered including, where appropriate, the advice of the Department Ethics Counselor, the deputy ethics counselor will: ( 1 ) Decide that there is no violation or potential violation of the standards of this subpart or any other law and so notify the employee and his or her supervisor in writing; or
( 2 ) Decide that a violation or potential violation of the standards of this subpart or other law has occurred or may occur, and that the employee involved shall take one or more of the steps set forth in § 731.735-904 to resolve the problem and notify the employee and his or her supervisor in writing; or
( 3 ) Decide that, although no violation of this subpart or other law has occurred, the nature of the matter is such that the employee should periodically report any additional information that would require reconsideration of the initial submission.
----

|   | (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); 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:  September 27, 2010 |   | By: /s/ Cris Neely      |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |                                |   | Cris Neely              |
|   |                                |   | Chief Financial Officer |