alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Duncan J. MCNEIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-5060, 05-5140.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

Duncan J. McNeil, pro se.

*ORDER*

Duncan J. McNeil has failed to comply with the court’s order dated July 13, 2005 for failure to pay the docketing fee in appeal nos. 05-5060 and 05-5140,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeals are dismissed.

(2) The United States motions for summary affirmance are moot.

(3) All pending motions are moot.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-61,177]

      ( print page 26426)    
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 26, 2007 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Bartech Group, Inc., including workers of Continental Design and Engineering and Manpower, Anderson, Indiana.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA-W-60,858 as amended) which expires on February 2, 2009. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 2nd day of May 2007.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-8824 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 10.4

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------



Summary of Loan  Agreement by and between  Shenzhen  BAK Battery  Co.,  Ltd. and
Longgang Branch, Agricultural Bank of China dated March 21, 2005.

Main contents:
>>   Contract No. (Shenzhen Longgang) Nong Yin Jie Zi (81101200500000299)
>>   Loan Amount (RMB) 20million yuan
>>   Contract Term: 21th March 2005 - 21th September 2005
>>   Interest rate: 5.22%
>>   Repayment:  principal  and  interest  are  payable  six months from date of
     agreement
>>   Purpose: Working capital
>>   Liabilities of Breach of Contract:  Breach of contract penalty;  withdrawal
     of loan,  prepayment of principal and interest before maturity,  attachment
     of assets; imposition of compound interest; lawyer's fee and travel cost in
     case of litigation due to the Company 's breach of contract etc.

Terms that have been omitted:  types of the loan; clearing of the loan interest;
condition  precedent to the drawing of the loan;  rights and  obligations of the
borrower;  rights  and  obligations  of the  lender;  prepayment  of  the  loan;
guarantee  of  the  loan;  dispute  settlement;  miscellaneous;   effectiveness;
validity; and attention.
### Coal resources of New Mexico

By: Charles Brian ReadR. T. DuffnerG. H. WoodA.D. Zapp

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir89

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 32.1   Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated (the “Company”) certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  • the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: November 8, 2006 /s/ John W. Peteres John W. Peters Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer
### Preliminary report on ground water in the Salmon Falls area, Twin Falls County, Idaho

By: Kenneth H. Fowler

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir436

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment Outlook in Metalworking Occupations

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Employment Outlook in Metalworking Occupations : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1130*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1953,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4455,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Dixon v. Bowerman, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3049.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-3049

DIXON, APPELLANT, v. BOWERMAN, WARDEN, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Dixon v. Bowerman, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3049.] 

Habeas corpus—Successive habeas corpus petition barred by res judicata—Court 

of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 

(No. 2019-1600—Submitted March 10, 2020—Decided May 27, 2020.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, 

No. L-19-1155, 2019-Ohio-4435. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In 2006, appellant, William Dixon, was sentenced to an aggregate 

prison term of 21 years after being convicted of multiple crimes. State v. Dixon, 2d 

Dist. Montgomery No. 21823, 2008-Ohio-755, ¶ 13. His convictions and sentences 

were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. at ¶ 53. 

{¶ 2} In 2018, Dixon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Sixth 

District Court of Appeals asserting multiple grounds for relief. State ex rel. Dixon 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

v. Bowerman, 156 Ohio St.3d 317, 2019-Ohio-716, 126 N.E.3d 1086, ¶ 2. The

Sixth District dismissed the petition, id. at ¶ 3, and this court affirmed, id. at ¶ 5. 

{¶ 3} In 2019, Dixon filed another petition seeking habeas relief. The Sixth 

District dismissed that petition as well, holding that Dixon’s claims are barred under 

the doctrine of res judicata and that he had an adequate remedy at law. 2019-Ohio4435, ¶ 10-11. Dixon appeals to this court as of right. 

{¶ 4} Because “[r]es judicata bars petitioners from filing successive habeas 

corpus petitions,” Bevins v. Richard, 144 Ohio St.3d 54, 2015-Ohio-2832, 40 

N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 4, we affirm. Dixon’s motion for leave to file an amended brief is 

denied. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 

and STEWART, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

William Dixon, pro se. 

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and William H. Lamb, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee. 

_________________
111298720 v1 May 15 th , 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption _____ issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket

No. FAA

- 2014

-

.

Dear Sir or Madam;

Snaproll Media was issued an E xemption numbered 11063 (hereinafter the Exemption)

for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed

- set filming for the motion picture and televis io n

industry. Snaproll Media herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an addition al

type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the

Exemption.

Snaproll Media wishes to operate a Freefly Cinestar 6 , 8 , DJI Phantom 1,2, 3 and DJI

In spire under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. S ubmitted to the

below CC as a confidential document, is the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM)

for the additional UAS

. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the

terms of the Ex e mption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another

type of unmanned aerial vehicle, Snaproll Media respectfully subm its that good cause exists so

that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request

for an amendment to the Exemption.

S incerely yours, Spencer Valdez

cc:

James Williams

Robert Pappas

Jake Troutman
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wayne Michael O’BRIEN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-10350.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 22, 2005.

Darin Lahood, AUSA, USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Arthur L. Allen, FPDNV-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Wayne Michael O’Brien appeals his 37-month sentence following a guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

REMANDED.

**

 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.
#### Joseph MOZA, MD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. KAWEAH DELTA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, aka Kaweah Delta Hospital; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-15177.

D.C. No. CV-03-06920-REC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 15, 2005.*

Joseph Moza, MD, Visalia, CA, pro se.

Andrew R. Weiss, Esq., Baker, Manock and Jensen, Lawrence E. Wayte, Esq., McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP, Fresno, CA, for DefendantAppellee.

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 **

Joseph Moza, M.D., appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Kaweah Delta HCD, Hanford Community Hospital, and various individuals violated his rights under the constitution and California state law when they summarily suspended him from employment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion both a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, *Pagtalunan v. Galaza,*291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and the denial of a motion for reconsideration, *School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Moza’s action for failure to comply with its order that he file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss where the court had previously given Moza a continuance of three months to file an opposition and had warned him that failure to do so would result in dismissal. *See Pagtalunan,*291 F.3d at 642-43.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Moza’s request for reconsideration because he merely reargued issues that the court had already considered and rejected, *see Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry,*950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir.1991), and did not satisfy any other grounds for relief, *see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or.,*5 F.3d at 1263.

Moza’s request for oral argument is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 44288.

#### Protests 751639-G, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
Date: June 24, 2011

Subject: Telephone Call with Valspar Regulatory Affairs Manager – Wood Coatings on the 

Availability and Use of Low- and No-Formaldehyde Coatings

Wood Furniture Manufacturing RTR

RTI Project No. 0212783.013

From: Dave Reeves, RTI International

To: Nick Swanson

OAQPS/SPPD/NRG (D243-02)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

I. Contact

Telephone calls were made to Valspar to inquire on the use and market availability of lowand no-formaldehyde coatings for the U.S. wood furniture manufacturing industry. I left a 

message with Bill Hale, but ended up talking with:

Ms. Sherry Stookey

Regulatory Affairs Manager - Wood Coatings 

High Point, NC (336) 802 – 4305

II. Summary of Information

Ms. Stookey was aware of the recent RTR proposal for the wood furniture manufacturing 

industry and commented that Valspar is the coating supplier for Kitchen Kompact, a high volume 

cabinet manufacturer. Ms. Stookey stated that Valspar does have a low-formaldehyde conversion 

varnish, but it has only been lab-tested and is not “commercialized.” She further stated that 

Valspar has one recent international customer that is now using the conversion varnish, but it has 

not made its’ way into the U.S. marketplace and there is no commercial experience related to the 

varnish performance requirements. 

Ms. Stookey said that changing to waterborne or water-based formulations will require a 

big technology shift for facilities with flat (panel) line production. Such changes will likely 

involve coating line reconfigurations and adding drying ovens which will require significant 

capital investment. When asked about coating costs, Ms. Stookey commented that those costs 

would be “higher to significantly higher.” 

I also asked about the rest of the furniture industry (other than flat panel cabinetry) and Ms. 

Stookey stated formaldehyde contents are very low in all other coatings used in the other segments 

of the furniture industry and is basically a “non-issue”. Ms. Stookey commented that UV 

technology is also an option and Valspar manufactures those coatings as well; with significant 

capital investment required for UV application equipment and coating lines.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-17-00271-CR 

TIMOTHY DANFORTH, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

McLennan County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2016-0698-CR2, Honorable T. Bradley Cates, Presiding 

 

June 3, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Pending before the court is the motion of appellant Timothy Danforth to dismiss 

his appeal. Appellant and his attorney have signed the motion. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

As no decision of the court has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, 

the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will 

issue forthwith.

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Do not publish.
#### Amarjeet Singh JANDU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73023.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 21, 2005.

Jeffrey Martins, Law Office of Jeffrey Martins, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Alexander R. Dahl, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, 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 **

Amarjeet Singh Jandu, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications *897for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 961 (9th Cir.2004). Reviewing the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence, *He v. Ashcroft,*328 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir.2003), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s determination that Jandu was not credible. Neither the IJ nor the government’s counsel questioned Jandu in any detail about his travels in and out of India or his ability to obtain either a passport or a police clearance stamp. Thus, the IJ failed to provide Jandu with a reasonable opportunity to address the perceived inconsistencies, *see Chen v. Ashcroft,*362 F.3d 611, 617-18 (9th Cir.2004), and Jandu’s testimony must be deemed credible, *see Kaur v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir.2004).

We therefore remand to the BIA for a determination whether, accepting Jandu’s testimony as true, he is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 15-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
(Reap. Dec. 9427)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5992-H.

(Decided May 20, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doiib,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement upon a stipulation on the basis of which I find that the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved is foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such value is the appraised unit value, less 4 per centum, packed.

J udgment will issue accordingly.
No. 48744.

#### Protests 936879-G, etc., of John Morgan, Inc., et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the

court dismissed the protests.
No. 43139.

#### Protests 963967-G, etc., of F. Blumenthal *&*Co. *et*al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.