alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T FERN A N D O V A SQ U EZ- D E LA M O RA an dM A RI A D E LA D EFEN SA FI GU ER OA - RODRI GU EZ , P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70978 A ge nc yN os . A 076- 610- 952

A 076- 610- 953 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 20, 2011 ** B e f o r e : R Y M E R , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . F ernand o V as qu ez -D e L a M ora and M ar i a D e L a D ef ensaF i gu er oaR odr i gue z , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of M e xi c o, pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rdi s m i s s i ng the i rappe a l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on 

# FI LED MA Y04 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70978 2 j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am o tio n to r e o p e n an dd e n o v o du e p r o c e s s c la im s . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to re op en because the m ot i on w as fi l ed m ore than fi ve ye ar s a ft erthe B IA ’ s f i nal o r d e ro f r e m o v a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2 ), an dp et i t i o n ers fai l edt o est ab l i sh tha tthe ya c t e d w i th the due di l i ge nc e r e qui r e d f ore qui t abl e t ol l i ng, se e I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 3 2 1 F .3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e qu itab le to llin g av a ilab le

“ w hen a pet i t i on eri s pre vent ed fr om fi l i ng because of dec ept i on , fr aud, or error, as lo n g a s th e p e titio n e ra c ts w ith du e d ilig e n c e ” ) . P e titio n e r s ’ du e p r o c e s s c la im th e r e f o r e f a ils . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 204 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( r e qui r i ng error f or a due process vi ol at i on ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

The undersignedhereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of American BankNote Holographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the period covered by the Report and the results of operations ofthe Company for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | By: /s/ Kenneth H. Traub               |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Kenneth H. Traub                       |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date:  May 16, 2005

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to American Bank Note Holographics, Inc.and will be retained by American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT &"Arial,Regular"	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2020 ReportingSection VII  &"Arial,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2020-21	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 7/16/20
No. 47847.

#### Protests 10367-K, etc., of Anco Import Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following Abstract 47109 and in view of stipulation entered into between counsel wherein the Government conceded that the items here in question are not composed in any part of synthetic resin or ivory, that they do not imitate pearls, and that they are not imitation pearl beads, they were found to be beads composed wholly or in chief value of glass and are in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones, file claim at 45 percent under paragraph 1503 was therefore sustained.
# Main

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2016 ReportingSection V

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2016-XX	&"Arial,Bold"V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 7-21-16

# Footnotes and Additional Inform

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2016 ReportingSection V

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2016-XX	&"Arial,Bold"V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 7-21-16
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS MORE HOLLAND 

BY: THOMAS MORE HOLLAND

IDENTIFICATION NO.: 43517

1522 LOCUST STREET

GRACE HALL

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

JOSEPH MARINO §

Plaintiff, § 

v. §

§

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL §

d/b/a VOYAGEUR SHIPPING LTD., et al. § CIVIL ACTION NO: 02-CV-4489

Defendants. §

 § 

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT

OVERSIGHT AND LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Movant Holt has failed to satisfy the legal requirements of the borrowed

servant doctrine with respect to this affirmative defense. The authority set forth in the

original argument submitted by Plaintiff referenced the legal standard in the New

Jersey Superior Court cases of Volb and Gore. Exhibit K, appended hereto hereto is

the deposition testimony of Defendant Joseph Levy.

Defendant Joseph Levy reported directly to Defendant Holt personnel. He did

not report to Trans Ocean Maritime Services Exhibit K, at 13. Defendant Joseph

Levy’s own party admission “I was not employed by Trans Ocean Maritime Services.”

(Exhibit K, 9). Defendant Holt, not the alleged borrowing employer Trans Ocean paid

and withheld taxes from Defendant Joseph Levy’s pay checks (Exhibit K 35, 36). 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 54 Filed 09/11/2003 Page 1 of 3
WHEREFORE, The affirmative defense of statutory employer has not been

established. As a consequence the motion for summary judgment on behalf of

Defendant Holt, it is respectfully submitted, should be denied. 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

THOMAS MORE HOLLAND

DATED: September 9, 2003

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 54 Filed 09/11/2003 Page 2 of 3
PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Thomas More Holland, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of

the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT

OVERSIGHT AND LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.to the court and counsel

of record electronically, the presiding Judge and Clerk with hard copies. Counsel of

record and pro se Defendants received copy by regular mail with Exhibit I.

Ann-Michele G. Higgins, Esquire

Rawle & Henderson LLP

The Widener Building

One South Penn Square

Philadelphia, PA 19107

A. Robert Degen, Esquire

Fox Rothschild O’Brien & Frankel

2000 Market Street - 10th floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Paul A. Kettunen, Esquire

Mattioni, Ltd.

399 Market Street

2d Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106

and to the pro se Defendants by regular mail:

Mr. Joseph Levy

615 Newton Avenue

Oaklyn, NJ 08107

Maureen Levy

118 Woodland Terrace

Oakland, NJ 09107

 

Date: September 9, 2003 THOMAS MORE HOLLAND

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 54 Filed 09/11/2003 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
v. Crim. No. 01-455-A
ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING RECEIPT OF
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Having familiarized myself with the applicable statutes,
regulations, and orders, related to, but not limited to, Title 18
United States Code, including unauthorized disclosure of
classified information, espionage and related offenses; The
Intelligence Agents Identities Protection Act, Title 50 U.S.C.
Section 421;; Title 18 U.S.C. Section 641; Title 50 U.S.C.
Section 783; 28 C.F.R. 17 et seq., and Executive Order 12356; I
understand that I may be the recipient of information and
documents that concern the present and future security of the
United States and belong to the United States, and that such
documents and information together with the methods and sources
of collecting it are classified by the United States Government.
In consideration for the disclosure of classified information and
documents:

(1) I agree that I shall never divulge, publish, or reveal
either by word, conduct or any other means, such classified
documents and information unless specifically authorized in

writing to do so by an authorized representative of the United


States Government; or as expressly authorized by the Court
pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act and the
Protective Order entered in the case of United States v.
Zacarias Moussaoui, Cr. No. 01-455-A, Eastern District of
Virginia.

(2) I agree that this Memorandum and any other non-
disclosure agreement signed by me will remain forever binding on
me.

(3) I have received, read, and understand the Protective
Order entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia in the case of United States v. Zacarias

Moussaoui, Cr. No. 01-455-A, relating to classified information,

and I agree to comply with the provisions thereof.

Frank W. Dunham, Jr. Date
Counsel for Defendant Moussaoui

Gerald T. Zerkin Date
Counsel for Defendant Moussaoui

Edward J. MacMahon, Jr. Date
Counsel for Defendant Moussaoui
No. 47328.

#### Protest 37696-K of Border Brokerage Co., Inc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States (5*Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported and that no addition should have been made for planing, or tonguing and grooving. Protest sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION 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 on Form 10-K of Ameriprise Certificate Company (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Abu M. Arif, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James R. Hill, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:February 25, 2022By/s/ Abu M. ArifAbu M. ArifChief Executive Officer


Date:February 25, 2022By/s/ James R. HillJames R. HillChief Financial Officer








E-7
**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**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of European Micro Holdings, Inc. (the
      “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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, as amended; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




Date:October16, 2006
            
            By:*/s/
                Jay P. Nash*Name:Jay
                P. NashTitle:Chief
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to European Micro Holdings, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by European Micro Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




EXHIBIT
          32.2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0776 LKK PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 59 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 9, 2006, motion

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: May 4, 2006.

/mp/004

/john0776.31

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 59 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2
|    |                                                                                                    |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Kaman Corporation; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |
| Date:  | February 27, 2013 | By: | /s/ Neal J. Keating |
|   |   |   | Neal J. Keating |
|   |   |   | Chairman, President and |
|   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |
Order filed, December 01, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00863-CR

____________

FRANK EDGAR REID, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No 6

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017010

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 14, 2016. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Katelyn Harrelson, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Vanessa Best, Doing Business as PRECISION HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Progressive Physical Therapy of New York, P.C. and RICHARD LEICHTER, Respondents.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (David A. Morris, J.), entered January 8, 2014. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 for services rendered, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the District Court as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action, upon a finding that plaintiff had failed to establish damages.</p><p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807; <i>see</i> UDCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (<i>see Vizzari v State of New York</i>, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; <i>Kincade v Kincade</i>, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126).</p><p>Here, the District Court, in finding that plaintiff had failed to establish damages, apparently found the defense witness's version of the events to be more credible than plaintiff's, and we find no reason to disturb the court's implicit determination in this regard. Consequently, substantial justice has been done between the parties (<i>see</i> UDCA 1804, 1807).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>Marano, P.J., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: March 23, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Before the Third Division,

November 7, 1946

No. 51400.

#### Protests 113337-K, etc., of L. E. Kriener-Hopkins (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell RHAMES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6125.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 30, 2001.

Decided April 16, 2001.

Darrell Rhames, pro se.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Rhames appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (1994) after construing it as a motion to vacate or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Rhames,*Nos. CR-97-217-S; CA-00-3749-S (D.Md. filed Jan. 3, 2001, entered Jan. 4, 2001). 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.*
<Page 123>

Consent of Independent Public Accountants



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement No. 33-8506 on Form S-8 effective September 25, 1986;
in Registration Statement No. 33-25931 on Form S-8 effective
December 28, 1988; in Registration Statement No. 33-29493 on Form
S-8 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 effective
December 22, 1989; in Registration Statement No. 33-32783 on Form
S-8 effective January 11, 1990; in Registration Statement No. 2-
72249 on Form S-3 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to
Form S-16 effective January 17, 1990, in Post-Effective Amendment
No. 2 to Registration Statement No. 33-6880 on Form S-8 effective
April 9, 1990; in Registration Statement No. 33-32783 on Form S-8
as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 effective April 9,
1990; in Registration Statement No. 33-47680 on Form S-8
effective May 5, 1992; in Registration Statement No. 2-72249 on
Form S-3 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Form S-
16 effective April 7, 1994; in Registration Statement No. 33-
80800 on Form S-8 effective June 28, 1994; in Registration
Statement No. 33-29493 on Form S-8 as amended by Post-Effective
Amendment No. 2 effective September 27, 1994; in Registration
Statement No. 33-62671 on Form S-8 effective September 15, 1995;
and in Registration Statement No. 33-62669 on Form S-8 effective
September 15, 1995 of Irwin Financial Corporation of our report,
dated January 16, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Irwin
Financial Corporation as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1995,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Indianapolis, Indiana
March 25, 1996