alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David Lee WATT, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent.

No. 05-3220.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 26, 2005.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of David Lee Watt’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order dismissing his petition for review for failure to file a Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning discrimination, a statement now having been received,*

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. The mandate is recalled, the dismissal order is vacated, and the petition for review is reinstated. Watt’s brief is due within 30 days of the date of filing of this order.

*

 The statement submitted by Watt is accepted for filing. Counsel for Watt is reminded that, in the future, the court’s form for satisfying the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) should be used.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOHN PAYNE,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 152 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2016, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
Exhibit 10(a)















	Exhibit 10(a)





	
      INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT

    




	Mercury Global Balanced Fund of Mercury Asset Management Funds, Inc.:




	We consent to the incorporation
      by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement
      No. 333-72239 of our report dated January 18, 2000 appearing in the annual
      report to shareholders of Mercury Global Balanced Fund of Mercury Asset
      Management Funds, Inc. for the year ended November 30, 1999, and to the
      reference to us under the caption “Financial Highlights” in the
      Prospectus, which is part of such Registration Statement.




	
      /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

    




	Deloitte & Touche LLP

      Princeton, New Jersey

      March 1, 2000
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard Davidson, Chief Financial Officer of
Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: May 12, 2006           
|                             
|/s/ Richard Davidson         
|Richard Davidson             
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Nurul KHAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

Docket No. 03-4856.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Sept. 2, 2005.

*384Salim Sheikh, (David A. Bowen, on the brief), New York, New York, for Petitioner.

Paul S. Padda, Assistant United States Attorney, (Daniel G. Bogden, United States Attorney for the District of Nevada, on the brief), Las Vegas, Nevada, for Respondent.

Present: WALKER, Chief Judge, CALABRESI, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioner Nurul Khan petitions for review from an April 9, 2003, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the May 9, 2001, decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Khan’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. In his petition, Khan argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s findings (1) that his claims of past persecution were not credible or sufficiently detailed and (2) that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution so as to qualify for asylum. Khan also argues that the BIA acted improperly in affirming the IJ’s decision without opinion and that it used the wrong standard of review in refusing to grant Khan relief. We assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history. We deny Khan’s petition.

Where the BIA has adopted the reasoning of the IJ or affirmed without opinion, we review the IJ opinion directly. *See Secaida-Rosales v. INS,*331 F.3d 297, 305 (2d Cir.2003). When reviewing the decision of the IJ, “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

The IJ rejected Khan’s claims based, *inter alia,*on (1) the implausibility and incoherence of his claims, and (2) the failure of Khan’s mother, an American citizen, to appear or submit an affidavit to corroborate Khan’s story. An additional fact supporting the IJ’s conclusion that Khan lacked credibility is that, despite his claim that the police in Bangladesh were still looking for him even after his departure from that country, he was able to leave the country using a passport issued in his own name and with his photograph on it. Significantly, Khan offered no explanation for his failure to bring his mother to the hearing to corroborate his story of detention and physical abuse, despite the fact that she was present in the United States and the fact that Khan was on notice that the absence of her testimony was troubling for the IJ. These fallings, along with others cited by the IJ, were significant, and the IJ was entitled to rely on them in refusing to credit Khan’s claims that he had been persecuted. Therefore, the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

We have carefully considered Khan’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons set forth above, the petition for review is DENIED.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 395 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24 (legislative day, JULY 23), 2008 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the printing of an additional number of copies 

of the 23rd edition of the pocket version of the United 

States Constitution. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF ADDITIONAL NUM4 BER OF COPIES OF POCKET VERSION OF THE 

5 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

6 Under the direction of the Joint Committee on Print7 ing, there shall be printed an additional number of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HCON 395 RDS 

1 copies of the 23rd edition of the pocket version of the 

2 United States Constitution (House Document 110—51) 

3 equal to the lesser of— 

4 (1) 550,000 copies, of which 440,000 copies 

5 shall be for the use of the House of Representatives, 

6 100,000 copies shall be for the use of the Senate, 

7 and 10,000 copies shall be for the use of the Joint 

8 Committee on Printing; or 

9 (2) such number of copies as does not exceed 

10 a total production and printing cost of $180,949, 

11 with distribution to be allocated in the same propor12 tion as described in paragraph (1), except that in no 

13 case shall the number of copies be less than 1 per 

14 Member of Congress. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                     December 15, 1999

Richard S. Angel
4509 Vista Lane
Sioux Falls, SD 57108


     RE: Amendment to Employment Agreement

Dear Richard:

This letter amends and modifies your Employment Agreement dated August 1, 1997.
The Board of Directors at its meeting on September 15, 1999, approved a
relocation package for you which provides:

     (i)   A $50,000 bonus payable upon moving to Sioux Falls,

     (ii)  The lease of an executive home (including maintenance and utilities)
           for 1 year (grossed up for income taxes)

     (iii) Moving expenses to and from Sioux Falls

     (iv)  An extension of your term of employment through September 30, 2000.

Except as modified by this letter, your Employment Agreement will continue to
govern all aspects of your employment.

                                                     Sincerely,



                                                     Kevin T. Riordan
                                                     President

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


-------------------------------
Richard S. Angel
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOHN PAYNE,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 152 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November , 2016, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED , and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED

.
Before the Third Division,

September 29, 1941

No. 46362.

#### Protest 809835-G of Romanoff Caviar Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the powdered soup is in packages and is the same as that the subject of Abstract 34529. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 35.3

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a
Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the Company), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2016 (the Agreement), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities
Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A division of PNC Bank National Association, as Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations
Reviewer, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (the Certificate Administrator), and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, the following:

1. A review of the Companys activities as Certificate Administrator during the reporting period ending December 31, 2016 and its
performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for
the reporting period ending December 31, 2016, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

This statement is given by the undersigned as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigneds individual capacity.

Date: February 27, 2017



Citibank, N.A.By:

/s/ Karen MontbachName:

Karen MontbachTitle:

Managing Director


CGCMT 2016-GC37
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5535

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DEBORAH F. LEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-95-382)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborah F. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Dean Arthur Eichelberger, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.

1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Deborah F. Lee appeals the sentence imposed after her guilty

plea to bank embezzlement in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 656 (West

1976 & Supp. 1996), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1988). We have reviewed the

record, including the presentence report and the transcript of the

sentencing hearing, and find that the district court did not

clearly err in assessing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of

justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.* Nor did the court clearly err when

it failed to apply a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Finding no other reversible error,

we affirm Lee's sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1394 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1394

    To allow a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
continue to serve on the Commission if a successor is not appointed and 
                     confirmed in a timely manner.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 20 (legislative day, July 19), 2011

Mr. Webb (for himself and Mr. Alexander) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To allow a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
continue to serve on the Commission if a successor is not appointed and 
                     confirmed in a timely manner.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COMMISSIONER TERMS.

    Section 201(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
5841(c)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(c) Each member'' and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(c) Term.--
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), each member'';
            (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``For the purpose'' 
        and inserting the following:
            ``(2) Expiration of term.--For the purpose'';
            (3) in paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph (1)), by 
        striking ``appointment; and except that'' and all that follows 
        through the end of the paragraph and inserting 
        ``appointment.''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Exceptions.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Any member who is appointed to 
                fill a vacancy that occurs prior to the expiration of 
                the term of the predecessor of that member shall be 
                appointed for the remainder of the term of the 
                predecessor.
                    ``(B) Applicability of term limitation.--
                Notwithstanding the term limitation under paragraph 
                (1), any member who has not been removed by the 
                President under subsection (e) may continue to serve on 
                the Commission until the earlier of--
                            ``(i) the date on which the successor of 
                        the member has been appointed and confirmed; or
                            ``(ii) the date on which the first new 
                        Congress begins after the term of the member 
                        has expired.''.
                                 <all>
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMicroscale Fracture Testing of HfO2-Si Environmental Barrier CoatingsEnvironmental barrier coatings (EBCs) play a vital role in protecting advanced turbine components constructed from ceramic matrix composites. EBC performance is evaluated based on many factors such as mechanical and thermal properties and chemical stability. This study focuses on the mechanical properties of individual phases within a HfO2-Si EBC through the combined use of chevron-notched microcantilevers and finite element modeling. The Si- and HfO2-rich phases were found to have fracture toughness K(sub IC) values of 1.36+/-0.07 MPa·m1/2 and 1.99+/-0.36 MPa·m1/2, respectively. Despite irregular notch geometry, calculated K(sub IC) values agreed reasonably with literature values of monolithic samples for the respective phases. The relatively large scatter in the HfO2-rich samples is attributed to heterogeneity in fracture feature size and distribution of the HfO2 and HfSiO4 phases. Comparisons with bulk single-edge V-notched beams suggest bulk behavior is dictated by the fracture behavior of the Sirich phase with no contribution from the HfO2-rich phase.Document ID20180006885Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRobertson, Andrew L.*(Houston Univ. Houston, TX, United States)*Sola, Francisco*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Zhu, Dongming*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Salem, Jon*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*White, Ken W.*(Houston Univ. Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 25, 2018Publication DateSeptember 1, 2018Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN42578NASA/TM-2018-219517E-19378Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 109492.02.03.02.02.02CONTRACT_GRANT: NNX15AQ13HDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180006885.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
BB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. OP 24 - 0283 JOSEPH S. CLARK,

Petitioner , v. JAMES SALMONSEN, Warden, Montana State Prison,

Respondent . **ORDER** Upon consideration of the State ’s motion for a 14 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent is granted an extension of time to and including June 24, 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response to the petition .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 4 2024

06/04/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0283
No. 44270.

#### Protest 928866-G of Sprouse Reitz Co., Inc. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

The appraiser describes the merchandise as balls made of sponge rubber to which a long thin rubber band is attached. The testimony showed that it is used by children who wrap the end of the rubber string around one finger and throw the ball away from them so that it may be brought back to the hand. It was therefore found to be a plaything chiefly used for the amusement of children and the protest was overruled.
EXHIBIT 10.10.3
 
 AMENDMENT No. 3 AND WAIVER NO. 2
to CREDIT AGREEMENT
 dated as of February 11, 2009
 among
 KANSAS
CITY SOUTHERN DE MÉXICO, S.A. DE C.V.,
as Borrower,
 ARRENDADORA KCSM, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.,
as Guarantor,
 CERTAIN LENDERS,
 and
 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent




---



##### 



THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND WAIVER NO. 2 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT Amendment sociedad anónima de capital variable Borrower sociedad de responsabilidad limitada de capital variable Guarantor Administrative
Agent
 RECITALS
 WHEREAS Existing Credit Agreement Amended Credit
Agreement
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW THEREFORE
 Certain Defined Terms; Other Interpretive Provisions
  Amendments Section 2
  Schedule 7.4
 Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 2




---



##### 



Waiver. PCRC
  Representations and Warranties
    Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 3




---



##### 



Effect of Amendment
 Effectiveness of Amendment Effectiveness Date
  Executed Amendment
 Organizational Documents
 Authorizations
 Section 7
 Amendment Fee multiplied by plus
 Ratification and Confirmation of Guarantee
 Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 4




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Counterparts
 Section Headings
 Loan Document
 Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 5




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN DE MÉXICO, S.A.
DE C.V., as theBorrowerBy:
    /s/ Paul J. WeyandtName:
    Paul J. WeyandtTitle:
    TreasurerBy:Name:Title:ARRENDADORA KCSM, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.,
   as the GuarantorBy:
    /s/ Paul J. WeyandtName:
    Paul J. WeyandtTitle:
    TreasurerBy:Name:Title: Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-1




---



##### 



BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
   as the Administrative AgentBy:Name:Title: Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-2




---



##### 



LENDERS:
BBVA BANCOMER, S.A., INSTITUCIÓN DE
BANCA MÚLTIPLE, GRUPO FINANCIERO 
BBVA BANCOMER, GRAND CAYMAN 
BRANCHBy:Name:Title:By:Name:Title: Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-3




---



##### 



BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.By:Name:Title: Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-4




---



##### 



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADABy:Name:Title:By:Name:Title: Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-5




---



##### 



KFWBy:Name:Title:By:Name:Title: Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-6




---



##### 



BANK OF MONTREALBy:Name:Title:By:Name:Title: Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-7




---



##### 



THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIABy:Name:Title:By:Name:Title: Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-8




---



##### 



COMERICA BANKBy:Name:Title:By:Name:Title: Amendment No. 3 and Waiver No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-9
#### Petronila Asuncion RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73465.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Gary G. Singh, Law Office of Gary G. Singh, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.

HI-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Gjon Juncaj, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petronila Asuncion Ramos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ *843(“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *see INS v. Doherty,*502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Ramos filed her motion to reopen more than five years after the BIA dismissed her appeal from the denial of her first motion to reopen, and well beyond the 180-day time limit. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(h). While this deadline is subject to equitable tolling when a petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, Ramos gives no sufficient explanation for why she did not file the motion until May 15, 2003, when the BIA dismissed the appeal from her first motion to reopen on December 21, 1998. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (requiring that an alien pursue his or her ineffective assistance of counsel claim with due diligence). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramos’s motion to reopen.

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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.