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 B ALJIT KUM AR ; JYOTI SHAR M A, Pe titione rs, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72289 Age n c y Nos. A089-697-731 A089-697-732 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. B a ljit Kum ar and Jy oti Sha rm a , nat ive s a

nd c itiz e ns of India , pe tition for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing the ir a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing the ir a pplic ation for a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252.



# F IL ED DEC 02 2014 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide nc e fa c tua l findings. Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t, e v e n if pe titione rs e sta

blishe d pa st pe rse c ution by Punja b polic e , the ir pre sum

ption of a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution wa s re butte d by e vide nc e tha

t the y c ould sa fe ly and re a sona

bly re l oc ate e lse whe re in India . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B ); Me lk onian v . Ashc roft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th C ir. 2003) (pre sum p tion of a we ll-founde d fe ar c an be re butte d by showing tha

t unde r a ll the c irc um s ta nc e s the a p plic ant c ould re a sona

bly be e xpe c te d to re loc ate ); se ealso Gonzale z-He rnande

z v . Ashc roft , 336 F.3d 995, 999-1000 (9th C ir. 2003) (noting that a ge nc y ha s e xpe rtise to c onstrue c ountry re ports). W e re

je c t pe titione rs’ c onte ntions tha

t the B IA im

prope rly pla c e d the burde n on pe titione rs to e sta blish we ll-founde d fe ar, and tha t the IJ’ s a

na ly sis of there a sona

ble ne ss of re loc ation wa s ba se d on spe c ulation. Ac c ordingly , pe titione rs’ a sy lum c la im fa ils. B e c a use pe titione rs fa ile d to e sta blish e ligibility

for a s y lum , the y

ne c e ssa rily c annot m e e t the m ore stringe nt sta nda rd for withholding of re

m ova l. Se eZe haty e , 453 F.3d a

t 1190. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

2 1 2 - 7 2 2 8 9
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 Health and Human Services [Document Identifier: OS-4040-0003]
 AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
 DATES: Comments on the ICR must be received on or before October 1, 2018.
 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to 
                        *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov*
                         or via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherrette Funn, 
                        *Sherrette.Funn@hhs.gov*
                         or (202) 795-7714. When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 4040-0003-30D and project title for reference.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden. *Title of the Collection:*
                     Application for Federal Domestic Assistance—Short Organizational. *Type of Collection:*
                     Extension. *OMB No.:*
                     4040-0003. *Abstract:*
                     Application for Federal Domestic Assistance—Short Organizational is an OMB-approved collection (4040-0003). This information collection is used by grant applicants. This IC expires on January 31, 2019. We are requesting a three-year clearance of this collection. Estimated Annualized Burden Table
Type of respondent
Number of
                             respondents
Number of
                             responses per 
                             respondent
Average
                             burden hours 
                             per response
Total
                             burden 
                             hoursGrant Applicant
936
1
1
936Total
936


936
 Terry Clark, Asst. Paperwork Reduction Act Reports Clearance Officer, Office of the Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2018-18970 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4151-AE-P
#### Eagle, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellant.

(No. 30301

Decided October 24, 1945.)

*2
      *Messrs. Ginocchio &*Ginocchio, for appellee.

*Mr. Hugh S. Jenkins,*attorney general, and *Mr. C. G. L. Yearick,*for appellant.

By the Court.

The fatal weakness of appellee’s case is disclosed in counsels’ statement. In a single sentence her counsel have compactly but comprehensively set forth appellee’s claim, to wit: “In the case now before the court, Miss Eagle was returning from a call in Bond Hill and was on her way back to Pogue’s to take care of accumulated business and *she paused en route to talce her lunch*in order to save time.” (Italics ours.)

We have carefully examined the record and are unable to find any evidence to sustain the claim that appellee’s injuries were received in the course of and arose out of her employment. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the taking of her lunch was any part of her duties. Therefore, when “she paused en route to take her lunch” she departed from her employer’s service for a reason personal to herself and not within the scope of her employment.

*3It is the contention of appellee “that any employee-who breaks his working day with a lunch period is still engaged in the course of his employment. We believe this to be a general rule of law supported by cases hereinafter referred to. The foundation for this rule is the common sense fact that it is as much to the employer’s benefit as to the employee’s, to have the employee in good physical condition and able to work at his best.”

If such reasoning be good then it would be equally tenable that sleep and recreation of an employee are also in the course of employment. Hence, if an employee fell out of bed and received an injury while getting needed sleep or broke his leg while getting needed recreation, such an injury would also be compensable.

The factual situation in the instant case differs materially from the facts in the case of *Industrial Commission*v. *Henry,*124 Ohio St., 616, 180 N. E., 194, relied upon by appellee.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in favor of the claimant but to obtain an award there must be some evidence that the injury was sustained in the course of and arose out of claimant’s employment. When appellee entered a restaurant of her own choice (and over which premises her employer had no control) for the purpose of getting her lunch she was not in the course of her employment under the record in this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be and the same hereby is reversed and final judgment rendered for appellant.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Turner and Matthias,, JJ., concur.

Bell, Williams and Hart, JJ., dissent.
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of De Yang International Ltd.  (formerly
Pinewood Acquisition Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2011 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 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.


                             /s/ Yanshi (Steven) Chen
		                  President



                             /s/ Zhengzhi Ye
                                  Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 19, 2011
#### Phillip GOFF, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, DETROIT DIESEL ALLISON DIVISION, et al., Appellees.

No. 74-46.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 3, 1974.

Arndt L. Mueller, Naples, for appellant.

James A. Smith of Wicker, Smith, Pysz-ka, Blomqvist & Danvant, Miami, for ap-pellee, General Motors Corp.

PER CURIAM.

The court, sua sponte, notes that the appellant is attempting to prosecute an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing one of two counts of a complaint directed toward the appellee named above in an action formerly cognizable at law. FAR 4.2, 32 F.S.A., does not permit an interlocutory appeal from such an order.

The court will treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari. Alliance for Conservation of Nat. Resources v. Furen, Fla.App. 2nd, 1958, 104 So.2d 803. However, the grounds urged by appellant are not such as to persuade the court to issue this extraordinary writ. See Stein v. Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., Fla.App.2nd, 1974, 287 So.2d 401. The appellant’s right to review upon these grounds must await final judgment.

The petition for certiorari is denied.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
H. R. 3984

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

An Act

To designate the building located at 216 Coleman Avenue in Waveland, Mississippi,

for the period of time during which it houses operations of the United States

Postal Service, as the ‘‘John Longo, Jr. Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The building located at 216 Coleman Avenue in Waveland,

Mississippi, shall, for the period of time during which it houses

operations of the United States Postal Service, be known and designated as the ‘‘John Longo, Jr. Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the building referred to

in section 1 shall, with respect to the period referred to in section

1, be deemed to be a reference to the John Longo, Jr. Post Office.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
DFAS Retired & Annuitant Pay www.dfas.mil/retiredmilitary

DD Form 2790 Checklist

Page 1 Customer E-Checklist

This form is used to identify the custodian of an unmarried minor child, incapacitated minor child, or child 

at least age 18 but under age 22 attending school full time, when a claim for annuity payments is made 

on behalf of the child. 

Additional assistance to complete the DD 2790, including a how-to video, is available on the Retired and 

Annuitant Pay Forms webpage at www.dfas.mil/retiredmilitary/forms

*The DD 2790 should be submitted with a completed DD Form 2656-7 Verification of Survivor Annuity.*

Additional assistance to complete the DD 2656-7, including a how-to video, is available on the Start an 

SBP Annuity webpage at www.dfas.mil/retiredmilitary/survivors/ApplySBP 

(DD 2790 - Custodian Certificate to Support Claim on Behalf of Minor Children of Deceased Members of the Armed Forces)

Supporting Documents Required

 Legal Representative Documentation - Only if signed by a court-appointed custodian

 Physician’s statement attesting the date and extent of incapacity of a mentally or 

physically incapacitated child, if applicable.

Quick Tips

1. To avoid delays, make sure your form is:

 Signed and dated by the custodian

 Complete, including social security numbers for the deceased member and 

child(ren)

 Sent with supporting documentation

Filling out the Form

Box 1: Enter the deceased military member’s name

Box 2: Enter the deceased military member’s social security number

Box 3: Enter the child(ren)’s information

 a. Full name 

 b. Social security number

 c. Date of birth

 d. Relationship to deceased member

Box 4: Enter Custodian’s relationship to child(ren) named in Box 3

Box 5: Mark an “X” in the box next to the applicable statement(s), then print 

Custodian’s full name, sign, enter date signed, and enter Custodian’s address

 a. Custodian’s name (Last, First, Middle Initial)

 b. Custodian’s signature

 c. Date signed

 d. Custodian’s address

Box 6: Enter any remarks, if applicable
DFAS Retired & Annuitant Pay www.dfas.mil/retiredmilitary

DD Form 2790 Checklist

Page 2 Customer E-Checklist

(DD 2790 — Custodian Certificate to Support Claim on Behalf of Minor Children of Deceased Members of the Armed Forces)

Reminders

 Is your form signed and dated by the claimant’s custodial natural parent, legal 

representative, guardian, or custodian?

 Is your form complete, including social security number’s of the deceased member and 

child(ren)?

 Did you include supporting documents? 

 Legal representative documentation, if needed?

 Physician’s statement, if needed?

 Keep a signed copy of the form for your records.

Online Upload:

Upload a PDF of your completed/signed forms 

and supporting documents via the AskDFAS 

online upload tool on DFAS.mil (this link is 

case-sensitive):

https://go.usa.gov/xVutz

Or mail to:

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

U.S. Military Annuitant Pay

8899 E 56th Street

Indianapolis, IN 46249-1300 

Or fax to: 

800-982-8459

Submitting Your Claim

Send your completed DD 2790, DD 2656-7 forms and supporting documents to:
#### Clarence THOMPSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 46713.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

*Feb. 28,*1972.

Rex K. Jones, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

RODGERS, Presiding Justice.

The appellant Clarence Thompson was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of assault and battery with the intent to kill and murder James Lester Turner. The case was tried in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi. ' He has appealed to this Court and now contends that the testimony was against the overwhelming weight of evidence and that the State failed to prove that the defendant intended to kill his victim.

The testimony shows that the appellant struck Turner with a seasoned stick, knocking him to the paved sidewalk with such force as to cause blood to run out of his mouth. He later returned and again struck Turner while he was unconscious. An eyewitness said:

> *“ .*. .1 mean he hit him with all his power with that stick, and it turned him all the way around and he fell on his back and his head hit the cement, and blood flew out of his nose.”

Unless one expresses his intent, the only method by which intent may be proven is by showing the acts of the person involved at the time in question, and by showing the circumstances surrounding the incident.

In the instant case the prosecuting witness, Turner, was unconscious for a period of three weeks from the date of the assault. He has been partially paralyzed since, so that he is totally unable *to*work.

We are of the opinion that the issue of intent to kill and murder was a jury question and was amply established by the testimony in this case.

There are no reversible errors shown in the record of the trial, and the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON, and SUGG, JJ., concur.
#### Laws, Appellee, *v.*Skinner, Appellant.

(No. 30458

Decided November 7, 1945.)

*Mr. Herbert F. Zipkin*and *Mr. A. E. Lane,*for appellee.

*Mr. Alexander H. Martin,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Bell, Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, *JJ.,*concur.
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**Management Certification under Section 302 ofSarbanes Oxley:**

 

I, Ignace Lahoud, Chief Financial Officer of Euro Disney S.A.S. (the “ManagementCompany”), certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 20-F of Euro Disney S.C.A. (the “Company”);

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The Company’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

(a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

(c)   Disclosedin this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (orpersons performing equivalent functions):

 

(a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)   Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:       April 4, 2006

 
|   | By:                            | /s/ IGNACE LAHOUD |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Ignace Lahoud            |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
| 1.     | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Europa Acquisition VII, Inc. |

| By:                | /s/ Peter Reichard                   |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------|
|     | Peter ReichardPresident and Director |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Williams, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—attempted burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     201,152,000
<SECURITIES>                                36,353,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,399,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,651,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           264,536,000
<PP&E>                                      47,533,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,871,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             325,958,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,946,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       118,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 285,616,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               325,958,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            55,506,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               63,515,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            90,090,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,834,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,529,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (91,286,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (91,286,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (91,286,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.23)


</TABLE>