alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Greetings All: 

Faulk, Scott (OST) 

Wednesday, April 08, 2015 1:34 PM 

'Young, Janet'; 'Wegley, Michael'; 'Bramble, John' 

Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) 

Requesting Community Comments re: EAS at Merced, CA 

Boutique Air Revised Proposal.pdf; Great Lakes revised proposai-Merced.pdf; 

SeaPort.pdf; Makani Kai at Merced.pdf; Mokulele.pdf 

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Merced, as well as give you an 

opportunity to offer any comments for the formal record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant 

Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. On March 27, 2015, one of the air carriers that submitted a 

proposal to serve Merced for a new term requested a modification to its proposal. The Department found it to 

be in the public's interest to grant the modification request, and in order to continue to provide a fair carrier 

selection process, the Department offered all carriers that originally proposed service at Merced, in response to 

Order 2014-5-9, an opportunity to amend their proposal. Amended proposals were due by April 6, 

2015. Boutique Air, Great Lakes Aviation, and SeaPort amended their proposals; Makani Kai and Mokulele 

did not amend their proposals. All five proposals for consideration are attached to this email and I expect them 

to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov sometime this afternoon. I request that you review the proposals and 

submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no later than May 8. 2015. Please send your 

comments directly to me via e-mail at scott.faulk@dot.gov. Also, please forward this to all relevant parties that 

I have not included on the distribution list. 

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. 

Regards, 

Scott Faulk 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

202-366-9967 

1
[No. 18238.

Department Two.

March 13, 1894.]

#### J. A. RICHTER, Roadmaster, etc., Respondent, *v.*THE FRESNO CANAL AND IRRIGATION CO., Defendant, FRESNO MILLING CO., Intervenor, Appellant.

Appeal—Insufficiency of Evidence—Failure of Respondent to Argue Case—Presumption. —Where material findings in a case appealed to the supreme court are attacked by the appellant on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support them, and the respondent has filed no brief and has not argued the case orally, the court will assume, without looking into the record, that the point urged by the appellant that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings attacked is well taken.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*T. P. Ryan,*for Appellant.

*District Attorney Firman Church,*for Respondent.

Fitzgerald, J.—

Action to abate an alleged public

nuisance. Plaintiff had judgment, and the Fresno Mining Company, intervenor, appeals from the judgment and the order denying its motion for a new trial.

It appears that certain material findings in this case are attacked by the specifications on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support them.

But as the respondent herein has not seen fit to file a brief, or to argue the case orally, we do not feel called upon to perform the duty of counsel by hunting through the record for the purpose of discovering evidence to , support the findings, which it was his duty, if it existed, to point out to the court.

Under such circumstances this court will assume, without looking into the record, that the point urged by appellant that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings attacked, is well taken.

Judgment and order reversed.

McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HENRY VALENZUELA, Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

7 USCMA 45, 21 CMR 171

*46No. 6852

Decided May 4, 1956

*Lieutenant Colonel James M. Scott*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Otis W. Harrison, Esq., Colonel Burton F. Ellis*and *First Lieutenant James L. Gault.*

*First Lieutenant Peter J. Hughes*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton*and *Lieutenant Colonel Robert M. Murray.*

Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The issues raised in this case are the same as those in United States v Turner, 7 USCMA 38, 21 CMR  134, decided this date. For **the reasons stated in our opinion in that case, the Petition for New Trial is denied. The decision of the board of review and the action of the convening authority are set aside.

The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General for reference to a general court-martial authority other than that which acted upon the initial review. In accordance with Article 61, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 648, a new review will be made by a Staff Judge Advocate who has had no previous connection with the case and a new action will be taken by such general court-martial authority.

Judge Latimer concurs.

Judge Ferguson did not participate in the decision in this case.
No. 49227.

#### Protest 103452-K of 21 Brands, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the report of the collector of customs was admitted in evidence and the Government recommended that an allowance for shortage be granted in accordance therewith. The protest was therefore sustained and the collector directed to reliquidate the entry, making allowance for all the bottles missing and also for bottles broken or damaged to the extent of 10 percent or more of the case contents of those cases delivered December 11, 1941.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP99-176-122] 

Take notice that on January 8, 2007, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Sub Third Revised Sheet No. 414A.01, to be effective January 1, 2007. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-561 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 56524.

protests 141711-K, etc. (New York).

#### Sterling Factors Company *v.*United States,

*444Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven silk fabrics similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. *D.*1326). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
#### C. A. Haynes & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7479.

Entry No. 753066, etc.

Invoices dated Perivale, England, March 13, 1946, etc.

Certified March 15, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 16, 1946, etc.

(Decided December 17, 1947)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medley
Capital Corporation, (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Brook Taube and Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: December 10, 2012



| | By | /s/ Brook Taube             | 
| | -- | --------------------------- | 
| |    | Brook Taube                 | 
| |    | Chief Executive Officer     | 
| |    |                             | 
| | By | /s/ Richard T. Allorto, Jr. | 
| |    | Richard T. Allorto, Jr.     | 
| |    | Chief Financial Officer     |
#### Joseph A. Kaplan, as Limited Administrator of the Estates of Joseph J. Kaplan and Another, Deceased, Appellant, v Paul Sparks et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[635 NYS2d 404]

—Appeal unamimously dismissed without costs *(see, Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr.,*155 AD2d 435; *see also,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Set Aside Verdict.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 13, 2014

No. 04-14-00072-CV

EX PARTE Guadalupe TORRES

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On May 6, 2014, this court received relator’s supplemental petition for writ of habeas 

corpus originally filed in the trial court. The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the 

opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, relator’s supplemental 

petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on May 13th, 2014.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of May, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008EM504721, styled In the Interest of S.I.R., A Child, pending in the 

45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jim Rausch presiding.
No. 55351.

#### Joseph Victori *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 146319-K (Philadelphia).

*381Opinion by

Johnson, J.

" Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Timothy P. Lynch, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tercica, Inc.; 

 

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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 16, 2005
---

|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|PURSUANT TO                                                               
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                                                   
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                                                    
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002                             

I, Steven Vestergaard, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. for the
year ended August 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. (the Company)

| | By:    | /s/ Steve Vestergaard  
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | STEVEN VESTERGAARD     
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | January 7, 2009        

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
10-KSB. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 10934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALICE PAMELA MAZAIWANA, AKA 

Grace Bezaliel, AKA Janepher Mazaiwana, 

AKA Pamela Mazaiwana Ncube, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70081 

Agency No. A206-438-999 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. 

Alice Pamela Mazaiwana, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe, petitions pro se 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from 

an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

APR 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-70081 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 

2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that even if a 

presumption of future persecution applied, the presumption was rebutted where, 

among other things, the agent of Mazaiwana’s past harm has died, and she 

regularly returned to Zimbabwe without incident. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. 

Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (substantial evidence supported 

finding that presumption of future persecution was rebutted); 8 C.F.R. 

§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A) (asylum), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A) (withholding of removal). 

Thus, Mazaiwana’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Mazaiwana failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by 

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Zimbabwe. 

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 127007(42) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JANE CAMPBELL WEST and Stephen J. Markman, JOE ELDON WEST, JR., Justices 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 127007 

 COA: 251003 

Charlevoix CC: 02-001558-CH 

FARM BUREAU GENERAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

MICHIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of 

October 13, 2005 is considered, and it is GRANTED. We VACATE our order dated 

October 13, 2005. On reconsideration, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in 

light of Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457 (2005), and Devillers v Auto Club 

Insurance Association, 473 Mich 562 (2005), including consideration of whether the 

contractual limitation period in this case may be judicially tolled. 

KELLY, J., would deny the motion for reconsideration. 

d0321 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 24, 2006 

Clerk
No. 51087.

#### Protests 61035-K, etc., of J. S. Hoffman Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance of *2yí*percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 47952.

#### Protests 664674-G/81072, etc., of Wm. F. Chiniquy Co. et al. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It having been agreed between the counsel for the respective parties that certain of the hats are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the claim a,t only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.
No. 50542.

#### Protests 57169-K, etc., of American Machine & Foundry Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust Ct. 88, C. D, 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.