alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Huma IBRAHIM, Appellant, v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Appellee.

No. 00-7285.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 22, 2001.

Before SENTELLE, RANDOLPH, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case filed April 10, 2000, and order denying reconsideration filed November 8, 2000, be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinions accompanying those rulings. The district court properly determined that ap*7pellant failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable fact finder to infer the real reason for appellee’s decision not to grant tenure was intentional discrimination on account of appellant’s race or national origin. *See Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr.,*156 F.3d 1284, 1288-90 (D.C.Cir.1998) (en banc).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, AdrianAdams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| Date: August 8, 2007 |                                    |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                      | /s/ ADRIAN ADAMS                        |
|                      | Adrian Adams                            |
|                      | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Sepracor Inc. and will be retainedby Sepracor Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

----
#### Simon GONZALEZ SEVILLA; Maria Dolores Ramon Sevilla, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73388.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Simon Gonzalez Sevilla and Maria Dolores Ramon Sevilla, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their untimely motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Because the transitional rules apply, *see Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for abuse of discretion, *Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen, because the record shows that the motion was not filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and petitioners failed to exercise reasonable diligence waiting over a year to move to reopen after this court issued a published decision allegedly affecting the outcome of their proceedings, *see Socop-Gonzalez,*272 F.3d at 1184-85.

To the extent petitioners contend the BIA should have found exceptional circumstances to grant the motion to reopen under its sua sponte authority, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision. *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1
  
  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 Bon-Ton Stores, Inc.
 DATE:  June 10, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Byron L. BergrenByron L. BergrenPresident and Chief
Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Keith E. PlowmanKeith E. PlowmanExecutive Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 19, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-17-00759-CV

JOHN HUYNH, Appellant

V.

DAVID A. FETTNER, COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-28276

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 3, 2017. On October 23, 

2018, this court abated the appeal because appellant’s brother, Phung Huynh, is in 

bankruptcy. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. According to the notice received by this court, 

on December 20, 2017, Phung Huynh petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy 

protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas 

under case number 17-36801. It is alleged the assets made the basis of this appeal 

were subject to the bankruptcy proceeding.
2

Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, 

the court has learned that the bankruptcy case was closed on September 24, 2020. 

The parties failed to advise this court of the bankruptcy court action.

On September 14, 2021, this court issued an order stating that unless any 

party to the appeal filed a motion demonstrating good cause to retain the appeal 

within twenty days of the date of the order, this appeal would be dismissed for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No response was filed. 

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and order it dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that: I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered by thisannual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-61;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date: March 24, 2006   By:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

# AGENCY:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

# ACTION:

Proposed addition to the Procurement List.

# SUMMARY:

The Committee is proposing to add service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

# DATES:

*Comments must be received on or before:*                         November 19, 2023.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email                         *CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

## Additions

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

### Service(s)

*Service Type:*                         Contractor Operated Parts Store                    

*Mandatory for:*                         Offsite Contractor Operated Parts Store (COPARS), Best Work Industries for the Blind, Cherry Hill, NJ                    

*Designated Source of Supply:*                         BESTWORK INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND, INC, Cherry Hill, NJ                    

*Contracting Activity:*                         DEPT OF THE NAVY, NAVAIR WARFARE CTR AIRCRAFT DIV LKE                    

Michael R. Jurkowski,

Acting Director, Business Operations.

[FR Doc. 2023-23245 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 122

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 16, 1999

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the United States Border Patrol’s 75 years of

service since its founding.

Whereas the Mounted Guard was assigned to the Immigration Service under the Department of Commerce and

Labor from 1904 to 1924;

Whereas the founding members of this Mounted Guard included Texas Rangers, sheriffs, and deputized cowboys

who patrolled the Texas frontier looking for smugglers,

rustlers, and people illegally entering the United States;
2

HCON 122 RDS

Whereas following the Department of Labor Appropriation

Act of May 28, 1924, the Border Patrol was established

within the Bureau of Immigration, with an initial force

of 450 Patrol Inspectors, a yearly budget of $1 million,

and $1,300 yearly pay for each Patrol Inspector, with

each patrolman furnishing his own horse;

Whereas changes regarding illegal immigration and increases

of contraband alcohol traffic brought about the need for

this young patrol force to have formal training in border

enforcement;

Whereas during the Border Patrol’s 75-year history, Border

Patrol Agents have been deputized as United States Marshals on numerous occasions;

Whereas the Border Patrol’s highly trained and motivated

personnel have also assisted in controlling civil disturbances, performing National security details, aided in foreign training and assessments, and responded with security and humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of numerous natural disasters;

Whereas the present force of over 8,000 agents, located in

146 stations under 21 sectors, is responsible for protecting more than 8,000 miles of international land and

water boundaries;

Whereas, with the increase in drug-smuggling operations, the

Border Patrol has also been assigned additional interdiction duties, and is the primary agency responsible for

drug interdiction between ports-of-entry;

Whereas Border Patrol agents have a dual role of protecting

the borders and enforcing immigration laws in a fair and

humane manner; and
3

HCON 122 RDS

Whereas the Border Patrol has a historic mission of firm

commitment to the enforcement of immigration laws, but

also one fraught with danger, as illustrated by the fact

that 86 agents and pilots have lost their lives in the line

of duty—6 in 1998 alone: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress recognizes the historical sig3 nificance of the United States Border Patrol’s founding

4 and its 75 years of service to our great Nation.

Passed the House of Representatives November 10,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


40 CFR Part 81 


[Docket: EPA-R10-0AR-2010-0294] 


Determination of Attainment for PM10 for the Sandpoint PMlO Nonattainment Area, Idaho 


AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to determine that the Sandpoint non attainment area in Idaho 

attains the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PMlO). 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-0AR-201O-0294, 

by any of the following methods: 

• 	 www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

• 	 Email: body.steve@epa.gov 

• 	 Mail: Steve Body, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101 

• 	 Hand Delivery / Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle 

WA,98101. Attention: Steve Body, Office of Air, Waste and Toxies, AWT - 107. Sueh 
2 

deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for 

detailed instructions on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at telephone number: (206) 553­

0782, e-mail address: body.steve@epa.gov,or the above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

For further information, please see the direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the 

Rules section of this Federal Register. EPA is approving the attainment detennination as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the 

preamble to the direct final rule. IfEPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take 

further action on this proposed rule. 

IfEPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not 

take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if we receive 
3 

adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 

be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule 

that are not the subject of an adverse comment. 

<""( t.~l t,o DATED:___--'--__ ~~=71{j.- ~ -oE"t-..l \-:,~. # .. ~\!'"Q.R..~oN 

~~~ \~~f\""L. pM. \N, ~'t'''--I\'t"() It 

Region 10
#### Charles Edward AVERY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E. Richard BAZZLE, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 05-6395, 05-6539.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 10, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 22, 2005.

Charles Edward Avery, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

In No. 05-6395, Charles Avery seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. In No. 05-6539, Avery seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 *189U.S.C. § 2253(e)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability -will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 338, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Avery has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 302 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 302

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2000

        Received; and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Calling on the people of the United States to observe a National Moment 
of Remembrance to honor the men and women of the United States who died 
                  in the pursuit of freedom and peace.

Whereas the preservation of basic freedoms and world peace has always been a 
        valued objective of this nation;
Whereas thousands of American men and women have selflessly given their lives in 
        service as peacemakers and peacekeepers;
Whereas greater strides should be made to demonstrate appreciation for these 
        loyal Americans and the ultimate sacrifice they each made;
Whereas Memorial Day is an appropriate day to remember American heroes by 
        inviting the people of the United States to honor these heroes at a 
        designated time;
Whereas Memorial Day needs to be made relevant to both present and future 
        generations of Americans; and
Whereas a National Moment of Remembrance each Memorial Day at 3:00 p.m., local 
        time, would provide the people of the United States an opportunity to 
        participate in a symbolic act of American unity: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) calls on the people of the United States to observe a 
        National Moment of Remembrance to honor the men and women of 
        the United States who died in the pursuit of freedom and peace; 
        and
            (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
        calling on the people of the United States to observe such a 
        National Moment of Remembrance.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 22, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
H. Con. Res. 245 Agreed to February 8, 2000

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 764) to amend

the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, with respect to certain increases

in funds, the Clerk of the House shall make the following corrections:

In section 104(a)(1), in the matter amending section 1402(d)(2)

of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984—

(1) strike ‘‘the next’’ the first place it appears and insert

‘‘The first’’; and

(2) strike ‘‘the next’’ the second place it appears and insert

‘‘the first’’.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
Before the Second Division,

November 27, 1962

No. 67213.

protests 60/22381, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### Enlite Products Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle horns and sirens similar in all material respects to those the subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.