alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EULALIO GUER

RER O, II, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. FR ANK X. C HAVEZ, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 11-16333

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00905-JAM DAD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 9, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and B YB EE, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd B ATTAGLIA, Distric t Judge . ** C a lifornia State prisone r Eula l io Gue rre ro a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe tition c ha lle nging his 2006 c hild m ole s tation c onvic tion a fte r a jury tria l. The distric t c o urt dism i sse d the



# FIL ED SEP 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Anthony

J. B atta glia , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.pe tition a s untim e ly be c a use it wa s file d m ore tha

n one y e ar a fte r the sta

te c onvic tion be c am e fina l. 28 U.S.C . § 2244(d)(1). Pe t itione r c la im s tha t he is e ntitle d to e quita

ble tolling. The Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t a pe titione r is e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling only if he ha s be e n dilige n t, a

nd e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s pre ve nte d

him from tim e ly filing. Holland v . Florida , 130 S. C t . 2549, 2562 (2010). Petitione r’ s only argum e nt is tha

t he re lie d for two y e a

rs on his da

ughte r’ s re pre se ntations tha t she would find him

a la wy e r. Gue rre ro wa s not diligent, for he ha s m a de no showing that he m a de e fforts to obtain c ounse l him se lf or m ake use of the prison la w libra ry . S e e Bills v . C

lark , 628 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th C ir. 2010) (to bedilige nt, m ust m ake use of whate ve r a s sista nc e is a va ila ble ). The re are no e xtra ordina ry c irc um s ta nc e s sim ila

r to the a ba ndonm e nt by

c ounse l tha

t oc c urre d in Maple

s v . Thomas , 132 S. C t. 912 (2012). AFFIRM E D .

2
~ r Project Controls 

Inc. ~ 

04/25/2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Amendment request to Exemption No. 13546; Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3602 

Project Controls Inc. has been issued an exemption, Regulatory Docket No FAA-2015-3602 and 

exemption numbered 13546 for aerial mapping and surveying using a SenseFiy eBee Drone. Project 

Controls Inc. requests an amendment to the exemption to allow four additional types of unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS) that fully comply with the conditions of the Exemption. 

Project Controls Inc. wishes to add the following unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 

1. DJI Phantom 4 

2. DJI Inspire 1 Pro 

3. DJI Matrice 600 

4. DJI Spreading Wings S1000 

The above UAS will be operated under the same terms and conditions contained in the existing 

exemption. Attached are the User Manuals for the additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS 

will be in full compliance with the terms ofthe existing exemption. 

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

unmanned aerial vehicles, Project Controls Inc. respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice 

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

Please feel free to contact me should you have any question or concerns concerning this request for an 

amendment to the Exemption. 

Enclosures: 

(1) DJI Phantom 4 User Manual 

(2) DJI Inspire 1 Pro User Manual 

(3) DJI Matrice 600 Safety Guide 

(4) DJI Spreading Wings S1000 User Manual 
Sincerely, 

Nathan Hexom 

Project Controls Inc. 

PO Box 11991 

Bozeman, MT 59719 

406-589-6894 phone 

nathan@project-controls.co
Regulatory Ev~•luation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate ldentitier: -AD 

(/yuumake changes tu the mlul!s in the table he/ow, youm11st ensure tlte totals 11pclate .:corcling~v. If 

they do 1101. click (or Tab) illlo OJI(/then ow of/he c:lumged cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection. propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Co ts Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do 1101 inc:lucle oncondition costs here access. testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Rainbow Fitting 24.0 $0 14 Inspections 

Rainbow Fitting 2,438.0 $40,000 14 Replacements 

BHEC Inspections 

with f-ittings 

Removed 

24.0 $0 14 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance tor U.S. tleet: $3,518,340 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) s 

On-Condition Costs: 0 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g .• Inspection. (include access, (@S85/hour) 

testing. and close- replacement) up) 

r-- -('v. I I 

1 

OM.{ r(_ 

old A_) ·5 

{..,)o(\<'T "' 'f-

'1 

otcl A j)'-

"k<'h.u_f 

< • 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warramy costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a ·'signifi cant regulatory action"? @ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? @ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatot·y Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer .• . 

YES D NO~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 0 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, July 26, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, July 26, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523, or write TAP Office, 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.

Dated: June 1, 2018.

Antoinette Ross,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2018-12210 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7724 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to implement, administer, or enforce 

the Presidential Memorandum on Excluding Illegal Aliens From the 

Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census, issued on July 21, 

2020. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2020 

Ms. MENG (for herself, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. COOPER, Mr. VELA, Ms. 

SHALALA, Mr. PAYNE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. 

GALLEGO, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. RUSH, Ms. 

NORTON, Mr. NADLER, Ms. HAALAND, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mrs. WATSON

COLEMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Mr. LOWENTHAL, 

Miss RICE of New York, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, Mr. WELCH, Mr. 

SCHNEIDER, Mr. POCAN, Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. 

LEE of California, Mr. COURTNEY, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. 

JAYAPAL, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mrs. HAYES, Mr. CARSON of 

Indiana, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Ms. TITUS, Mr. 

SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. SOTO, Ms. ADAMS, Mr. SIRES, 

Mr. PANETTA, and Ms. GARCIA of Texas) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to implement, administer, or enforce the Presidential Memorandum on Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census, issued on July 21, 2020. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7724 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Funds for Appor3 tionment Exclusion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS. 

5 No Federal funds, resources, or fees made available 

6 to any Federal agency may be used to implement, admin7 ister, enforce, or carry out (including through the issuance 

8 of any regulations) any of the policy changes set forth in 

9 the Presidential Memorandum on Excluding Illegal Aliens 

10 From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Cen11 sus, issued on July 21, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.1








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 1st Source Corporation (1st Source) on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J. Murphy
III, Chief Executive Officer 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 my knowledge:








(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
theSecurities and 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 1st Source.











By:








/s/CHRISTOPHER J. MURPHY
III


Christopher
J. Murphy III


Chief
Executive Officer


July 30,
2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:





Investor Contact:James F. LairdChief Financial Officer614.255.3353 (jlaird@diamond-hill.com)
  Media Contact:Susan StuartDirector - Client Relations & Communications614.255.3348 (sstuart@diamond-hill.com)











DIAMOND HILL ANNOUNCES ADDITION OF FAITH STEVENSON


TO INSTITUTIONAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT TEAM





Columbus, Ohio - July 15, 2014 - Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:DHIL) announced that Faith Stevenson, CFA, CPA has joined Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc. as Director of Institutional Business Development.  Ms. Stevenson is based in New Jersey and will serve clients and prospective clients in the Northeast.   She has extensive experience with intermediary and institutional distribution and reports to Lisa Wesolek, Chief Operating Officer and Managing Director, Head of Distribution.





“We are very excited to have Faith join our team,” said Lisa Wesolek.  “Her extensive experience with both intermediary and institutional clients and her presence in the Northeast will be beneficial to our clients as our business continues to grow.”





Prior to joining Diamond Hill, Ms. Stevenson served as Managing Director, Head of Fixed Income Business Development at Smith Graham in New York City.  She began her career as an analyst with Smith Barney and then UBS, served as Director of New Business Development for Forstmann-Leff Associates, LLC and was Managing Director, Consultant Relations with Bear Stearns Asset Management.  Ms. Stevenson has a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration degree in Accounting from The Ohio State University, holds the chartered financial analyst (CFA) designation, and is a certified public accountant (CPA).








About Diamond Hill :


We are an independent investment management firm with significant employee ownership and $14.2 billion in assets under management as of June 30, 2014.  We provide investment management services to institutions and individuals through mutual funds, institutional separate accounts, and private investment funds.  Our entire investment team shares the same intrinsic value investment philosophy focused on absolute returns, and our interests are firmly aligned with our clients through significant investment in our strategies.  For more information visit www.diamond-hill.com .





DIAMOND-HILL.COM | 614.255.3333 | 325 JOHN H. MCCONNELL BLD | SUITE 200 | COLUMBUS, OHIO 432
258 La. 213

#### QUICK FINANCE SERVICE, INC. v. Johnny L. YOUNGBLOOD.

No. 51248.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 24, 1971.

In re: Marine Specialty and Mill Supply Co., Inc. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 243 So.2d 321.

Writ refused. The result is correct.
Exhibit 4.3


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated March 12, 2014, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-193541) of Smart Trust, New
Jersey Municipal Portfolio of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 4.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


Grant
Thornton LLP


Chicago, Illinois


March 12, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<MULTIPLIER>           1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           OCT-2-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-3-1999
<CASH>                                           6,935
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,683,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                   157,723
<INVENTORY>                                  4,777,172
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,504,388
<PP&E>                                       5,121,405
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,718,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,275,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,797,658
<BONDS>                                         58,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,486
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,403,303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,275,010
<SALES>                                      9,746,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,746,267
<CGS>                                        6,143,672
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,143,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                43,381
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             616,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,124,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,124,923)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,124,923)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.74)



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10908 Summary Calendar

WALTER P. LAZDOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CV-118

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Walter P. Lazdowski filed suit against his former employer to seek redress for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed his suit, and this appeal ensued. Lazdowski argues that the district court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his retaliation claims, which sought relief for acts that occurred in 2002. Lazdowski has not shown that the district court erred inNo. 04-10908 -2- dismissing these claims, as he has not established that he was subjected to an adverse employment action that was meant to retaliate against him for engaging in protected activity. See
Messer v. Meno , 130 F.3d 130, 140 (5th Cir. 1997). Lazdowski likewise has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his claims that related to events that occurred in 1997 were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. To the extent that Lazdowski contends that the district court lacked the authority to raise this doctrine sua sponte, he is
wrong. See Carbonell v. Louisiana Dep’t of Health & Human
Resources , 772 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 1985). To the extent that Lazdowski argues that the district court erred in determining that his 1997 claims should be dismissed because they arose from the same nucleus of operative facts as the claim asserted in his 2000 suit, he is likewise wrong. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. St. Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La., Inc. , 37 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 1994). Lazdowski has shown no error in the judgment of the district court. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
Cherry , J.

of the HOA lien." Here, appellant's complaint alleged that the foreclosure sale was conducted pursuant to NRS Chapter 116, and the record is silent as to whether respondent was sent the notices referenced in NRS 116.31162 through NRS 116.31168. The record is likewise silent as to whether respondent attempted to pay off Southern Highlands Community Association's lien before Southern Highlands' foreclosure sale. Thus, we conclude that it was improper for the district court to base its denial of injunctive relief on its two aforementioned findings. We therefore

VACATE the order denying preliminary injunctive relief and REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.'

Hardesty

Douglas CHERRY, J., concurring:

For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the disposition of this appeal. , J.

'The injunction imposed by our June 18, 2013, order is vacated.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947Acc: Hon. Allan R. Earl, District Judge Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom & Winters, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A e
EXHIBIT32.2

** **

FIRSTHARTFORD CORPORATION

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First HartfordCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I Stuart I. Greenwald, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

    -  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 
    -  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

/s/ Stuart I. Greenwald

Stuart I. Greenwald

Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer

 

Date: October 6, 2010