alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1650 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1650

 To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain entries in 
    accordance with the results of an administrative review by the 
                  International Trade Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 1995

Mr. Romero-Barcelo introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain entries in 
    accordance with the results of an administrative review by the 
                  International Trade Administration.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF ENTRIES.

    (a) Liquidation or Reliquidation of Entries.--Notwithstanding 
sections 514 and 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 
1520), and any other provision of law, the United States Customs 
Service shall liquidate or reliquidate those entry numbers made at New 
York, New York, which are listed in subsection (c), in accordance with 
the final results of the administrative review, covering the period 
from May 1, 1984, through March 31, 1985, undertaken by the 
International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce for 
such entries (case number A-580-008).
    (b) Payment of Amounts Owed.--Any amounts owed by the United States 
pursuant to the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry under 
subsection (a) shall be paid by the Customs Service within 90 days 
after such liquidation or reliquidation.
    (c) Entry List.--The entries referred to in subsection (a) are the 
following:

                                                                        
                Entry Number                         Date of Entry      
                                                                        
  84-4426808................................  August 29, 1984           
  84-4427823................................  September 4, 1984         
  84-4077985................................  July 25, 1984             
  84-4080859................................  August 3, 1984            
  84-4080817................................  August 3, 1984            
  84-4077723................................  August 1, 1984            
  84-4075194................................  July 10, 1984             
  84-4076481................................  July 17, 1984             
  84-4080930................................  August 9, 1984.           
                                                                        

                                 <all>
```
#### § 221.77 Disclosure of evidence.

The Party shall, upon request, be provided a free copy of all the evidence in the case file, except material that would disclose or lead to the disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant and any other information properly exempt from disclosure.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statement Nos. 333-03703, 333-27009, 333-28147, 333-53667,333-85791, 333-36478, 333-40038, 333-43838, 333-67868, 333-85884, and 333-109314 of i2 Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-8, the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to registration statements Nos. 333-31342 and333-96341 and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to registration statement No. 333-59106 of the Company on Form S-3 and registration statement No. 333-49180 of the Company on Form S-3 of our reports relating to the consolidated financial statementsof i2 Technologies, Inc., and subsidiaries, and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting dated March 15, 2005, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of i2 Technologies, Inc. and subsidiariesfor the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Dallas, Texas 

March 15, 2005
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 Quarterly Report of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with
the  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Cheryl L. Whalen,
Executive Vice President and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.  1350, as added by ss. 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:  November 14, 2003             By: /s/ Cheryl L. Whalen
       -----------------                 ---------------------------------------
                                         Cheryl L. Whalen, Executive Vice
                                         President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”), asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ben T.Morris, 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ BEN T. MORRIS       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Ben  T. Morris          |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                         |        |  |

 

 

November 8, 2004

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained by SandersMorris Harris Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Timothy G. Byrd, Sr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Medical
Management, 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 quarterly 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 the end of the period covered by this report

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: May 22, 2006

/s/ Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.
------------------------
Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.
Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices 

# Order

September 17, 2010

140662 141196

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellee, v SC: 140662 COA: 288418 Oakland CC: 2006-073586-NF BELINDA GOLDSTEIN,Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ThirdParty Plaintiff-Appellant, and

DANIEL LEON, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff- Appellee,

v

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Third-Party Defendant/Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellant, v SC: 141196 COA: 288418 Oakland CC: 2006-073586-NF BELINDA GOLDSTEIN,Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ThirdParty Plaintiff-Appellee, and

DANIEL LEON, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff- Appellee,

v

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Third-Party Defendant/Appellee.

_____________ _______________ _____________/I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 17, 2010

p0914 2

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the January 19, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals are consid ered. We DIRECT th e parties to submit supplemental briefs, within 35 days of the date of this order, addressing the issue whether, because the titled owner of the vehicle invo lved in the accide nt maintained an automobile insurance po licy on the vehicle issued by plain tiff Geico, and Geico, in turn,
filed the written certification with th e State of Michigan required under MCL 500.3163(1), the resulting no-fault coverage satisfied the condition for eligibility for personal protection insurance benefits specified by MCL 500.3113(b), even if
defendant Goldstein was an “owner” of the vehicle within the meaning of MCL 500.3101(h)(i), thereby obviating any need for the further proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. The applications for leave to appeal remain pending.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit 
Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 
92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Rehabilitation 
Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will 
meet from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. each day as indicated below:

August 29-30, 2007, Madison Loews Hotel, Washington, DC.
September 5-6, 2007, Sofitel Lafayette Hotel, Washington, DC.

    The purpose of the Board is to review rehabilitation research and 
development applications for scientific and technical merit and to make 
recommendations to the Director, Rehabilitation Research and 
Development Service, regarding their funding.
    The meetings will be open to the public for the August 29 and 
September 5 sessions from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. for the discussion of 
administrative matters, the general status of the program and the 
administrative details of the review process. The meetings will be 
closed as follows for the Board's review of research and development 
applications:

August 29 from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
August 30 from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
September 5 from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
September 6 from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    The reviews involve oral comments, discussion of site visits, staff 
and consultant critiques of proposed research protocols, and similar 
analytical documents that necessitate the consideration of the personal 
qualifications, performance and competence of individual research 
investigators. Disclosure of such information would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Disclosure would also 
reveal research proposals and research underway which could lead to the 
loss of these projects to third parties and thereby frustrate future 
agency research efforts. Thus, the closing is in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), and (c)(9)(B) and the determination of the Secretary 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs under Section 10(d) of Public Law 
92-463 as amended by Section 5(c) of Public Law 94-409.
    Those who plan to attend the open sessions should contact Terrilynn 
Carlton, Federal Designated Officer, Portfolio Manager, Rehabilitation 
Research and Development Service (122P), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 254-
0265.

    Dated: April 30, 2007.
    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-2252 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
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

LUIS SER-ABOR, a.k.a. Raul Medina

Duran,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 08-74050

 09-72949

Agency No. A074-364-563

MEMORANDUM*

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Luis Ser-Abor, a native and

citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

removal order, and denying his motions to reopen and remand. Our jurisdiction is

FILED

MAR 02 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72949

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

motion to remand or reopen, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny the petition for review in No. 08-74050, and deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review in No. 09-72949.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ser-Abor’s motion to

remand because the motion was not supported by evidence showing prima facie

eligibility for relief. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003). In his

opening brief, Ser-Abor fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to,

the agency’s denial of his cancellation of removal application. See MartinezSerrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ser-Abors’ March 5, 2009,

motion to reopen as untimely where Ser-Abor filed the motion more than ninety

days after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed

to submit new and material evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that

would excuse the late filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
3 09-72949

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.

INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). If we had jurisdiction to review the

BIA’s decision, we would find no abuse of discretion.

In No. 08-74050: PETITION FOR DENIED.

In No. 09-72949: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;

DISMISSED in part.
#### § 56.30-27 Caulked joints.

Caulked joints may not be used.

[CGD 77-140, 54 FR 40606, Oct. 2, 1989]
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.45-15 Approval requirements. ( a ) A classification society may be approved for purpose of § 2.45-10 if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) Vessels surveyed by the classification society must have a worldwide port state control detention rate of less than 2 percent based on the number of Recognized Organization (RO)-related detentions divided by the number of vessel inspections for at least 40 port state control inspections for the past 3 years;
( 2 ) The classification society must not be identified in the most recent publication of “Port State Control in the United States” as a Priority I and as having more than one RO-related detention for the past 3 years;
( 3 ) The classification society must comply with the minimum standards for an RO recommended in IMO Resolution A.739(18), Appendix 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.45-5.);
( 4 ) The classification society must be an RO for at least one country under a formal written agreement that includes all of the elements described in IMO Resolution A.739(18), Appendix 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.45-5.);
( 5 ) The referenced country that is cited for satisfaction of the requirement of paragraph (a)(4) of this section for which the classification society is an RO— ( i ) Must be signatory to each of the following: The International Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS), the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), the International Convention on Load Lines (ICLL), 1966, and the Protocol of 1988 relating to the ICLL, 1966; and
( ii ) Must not be identified as a flag state targeted for additional port state control action by the Coast Guard or any regional port state control secretariat.
( 6 ) The classification society must use a system to— ( i ) Make its safety records and those of persons acting on behalf of the classification society available to the Coast Guard in electronic format;
( ii ) Provide its safety records and those of persons acting on behalf of the classification society to another classification society that requests those records for the purpose of conducting surveys of vessels; and
( iii ) Request the safety records of a vessel to be surveyed from any other classification society that previously surveyed that vessel.
( b ) Where sufficient performance records are not available from a regional port state control secretariat, the Coast Guard may consider an equivalent safety performance indicator proposed by the classification society seeking approval.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending June 7, 2008

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                   | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method   
|---------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | --------------
|STATE STREET B&TC, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS | 35301  | 04/09/2007 | 07/29/2007     | O         | Whole/Ltd Purp

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### The State ex rel. World Stamping and Manufacturing Company *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.

[Cite as *State ex rel. World Stamping & Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm.*(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 433.]

(No. 96-1991

Submitted January 13, 1999

Decided February 10, 1999.)

*435*Kolick & Kondzer, Daniel J. Kolick*and *John P. Desimone,*for relator.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Gerald H. Waterman,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Industrial Commission.

*Ben Pandurevic,*for respondent Jon Suech.

*Per Curiam..*

A single specific safety requirement is at issue - Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-10(C)(3)(a). The commission found a violation of this safety require-, ment, and we, in turn, find no abuse of the commission’s discretion.

Claimant’s testimony, various photographs, and finally the affidavit of Dr. Richard E. Harkness, a registered professional engineer who inspected the accident site and the claimant’s press, indicate that the foot pedal had no front cover. There is thus “some evidence” supporting the commission’s determination that the front of the foot pedal was not protected. The presence of contrary evidence is immaterial given the commission’s role as the ultimate finder of fact. As stated in *State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.*(1984), 6 Ohio St.3d 481, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E.2d 721, we will not reweigh evidence.

Having so found, we also find pursuant to *State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Indus. Comm.*(1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 83, 537 N.E.2d 215, that the commission did not *436abuse its discretion in finding that the lack of a front foot pedal cover constituted aVSSR.

Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is denied.

*Writ denied.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of William Kortz, *Respondent, v.*The Board of Canvassers of Greene County, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with costs against appellants. Opinion, by

Bocees, J.