alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; 

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE;

VALERIE BUCHANAN; JANE

GARRISON; NANCY MEGNA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 04-15788

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR D.C. No.

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH,  CV-03-03400-PJH

Intervenor-Appellee, ORDER

v.

ANN M. VENEMAN; BOBBY R.

ACORD; CHESTER A. GIPSON,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Filed April 6, 2007

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge.

ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active

judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by

the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The threejudge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to

this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to

the extent adopted by the en banc court.

4115
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2007 Thomson/West.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff -Appellee,

v.

DANIELLE JERMAINE JACKSON, a/k/a Head,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-17; 3:12-cv-00163-FDW)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danielle Jermaine Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Danielle Jermaine Jackson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# C_2015367EN.01000803.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/8

---

EUROPEAN TRAINING FOUNDATION

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2014

(2015/C 367/30)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.etf.europa.eu/wpubdocs.nsf/0/0D1B4B2834B73238C1257E5E002F2344/$File/GB15DEC005_EN.pdf

---
constituted a continuing violation, such that the time for bringing his

claims had not expired, rendering dismissal on the bases advanced by respondents improper. The district court ultimately granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that appellant had not filed a timely administrative claim and that he likewise had not filed any grievances pertaining to the claims at issue in his complaint. This appeal followed. As directed, respondents have filed a response.

In the present matter, the district court's order dismissing appellant's complaint contains no findings regarding the alleged threats of retaliation that appellant argues rendered the grievance process unavailable to him, and thus, does not address the impact of these alleged threats on his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with NRS 41.0322(1). The challenged order also fails to address appellant's assertion that the removal of interest from his accounts constituted a continuing violation and whether that argument renders any of the various administrative claim forms included in the record timely and properly submitted, such that appellant may have complied with the requirements of NRS 209.243(1). Having reviewed the documents before us, including the civil proper person appeal statement and response thereto, we conclude that the district court's failure to make adequate findings and otherwise fully address these points in its dismissal order has left us unable to determine whether, under the circumstances presented here, dismissal of the underlying complaint was warranted. 

### See Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (concluding that a "complaint should be dismissed only if it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [him or her] to relief'). Accordingly, we

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A zetoreverse the district court's dismissal of the underlying action and remand

this matter for further proceedings.

It is so ORDERED. 1

Hardesty 

# f ocR J. Douglas

Cherry

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Percy Lavae Bacon Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

'The clerk of this court is directed to file appellant's January 11, 2013, response to respondents' opposition to his request to file an errata. In light of this order, all other requests for relief pending in this matter are denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

(0) I947A
EXHIBIT 32

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 China Golden Star Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and Financial  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 the best of my knowledge:

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

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  May 13, 2011
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3952

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to alleviate the inequitable

tax treatment of individuals operating small, expanding publishing businesses as S corporations or partnerships, thereby encouraging the growth

and development of such businesses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 3, 1994

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. SHAW) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to alleviate

the inequitable tax treatment of individuals operating

small, expanding publishing businesses as S corporations

or partnerships, thereby encouraging the growth and development of such businesses.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION TO MINIMUM TAX TREATMENT

4 OF CIRCULATION EXPENSES.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Subparagraph (D) of section

6 56(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
2

•HR 3952 IH

1 to circulation and research and experimental expenditures)

2 is amended to read as follows:

3 ‘‘(D) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENDI4 TURES.—If the taxpayer materially participates

5 (within the meaning of section 469(h)) in an

6 activity, this paragraph shall not apply to any

7 amount allowable as a deduction under section

8 173 or 174(a) for expenditures paid or incurred

9 in connection with such activity.’’

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by

12 subsection (a) shall apply to expenditures paid or in13 curred in taxable years ending after the date of the

14 enactment of this Act.

15 (2) 5-YEAR SPREAD FOR PREVIOUSLY CAPITAL16 IZED EXPENDITURES.—

17 (A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of deter18 mining the alternative minimum taxable income

19 of any taxpayer, the expenditures described in

20 subparagraph (B) shall be amortized ratably

21 over the 5-year period beginning with the first

22 day of the first taxable year ending after the

23 date of the enactment of this Act. Such amorti24 zation shall be treated as the amount allowable
3

•HR 3952 IH

1 under section 56(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Reve2 nue Code of 1986.

3 (B) DESCRIPTION OF EXPENDITURES.—

4 The expenditures described in this subpara5 graph consist of the unamortized balance (as of

6 the close of the taxpayer’s last taxable year

7 ending before the date of the enactment of this

8 Act) of the circulation expenditures which were

9 capitalized under section 56(b)(2)(A) of the In10 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 and which would

11 not have been so capitalized if the amendment

12 made by subsection (a) had applied to the tax13 able years in which such expenditures were paid

14 or incurred.

Æ
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before STEPHENS , ATTANASIO , and DEERWESTER Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. David I. WEAVER Aviation Machinist’s Mate Third Clas s (E

- 4 ), U.S. Navy Appellant
No. 202100194

_________________________

Decided: 15 March 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge : Hayes C. Larsen Sentence adjudged 14 April 2021 by a special court

- martial convened at Naval Station Norfolk , Norfolk, Virginia, consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 180 days , and a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Captain Da niel J

. McCoy , JAGC, USN

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________United States v. Weaver , NMCCA No. 202100194 Opinion of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings a nd sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 1 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 18 November 2004

in Case C-85/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/17/EC - Reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 19/13)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-85/04: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 February 2004, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and P. Léouffre) against French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and O. Christmann) – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting as President of the Fourth Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 84 of 3.4.2004.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         503,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,983,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   620,000
<INVENTORY>                                 21,972,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            58,637,000
<PP&E>                                      14,398,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,061,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,215,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,976,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       142,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,116,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,215,000
<SALES>                                    197,861,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           197,861,000
<CGS>                                      157,069,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              157,069,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            41,542,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                45,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,913,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,708,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (644,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,064,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,064,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

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 Dunhuang Treasures Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and Financial  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 the best of my knowledge:

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

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  February 14, 2011
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
SCWC-28958

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

_________________________________________________________________

C. BREWER AND COMPANY, LTD., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

MARINE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; 

FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAII; and 

JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees,

and

INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF HAWAII, LTD.; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

OF PITTSBURGH; UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY;

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; TIG INSURANCE COMPANY;

COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY; THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY; 

RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY; LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; 

CIGNA PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS

INSURANCE CO., INC.; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY; 

FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO.; KILAUEA IRRIGATION CO., INC.;

 KEHALANI HOLDINGS CO., INC.; STATE OF HAWAI#I; and 

HAWAII INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION; 

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees,

and

STATE OF HAWAI#I, 

Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant,

vs.

MARSH USA, INC., Respondent/Third-Party Defendants-Appellees,

and

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-28958

03-FEB-2014

08:28 AM
KEHALANI HOLDINGS COMPANY, INC.,

Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant,

vs.

UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE

COMPANY; ALEXANDER HOWDEN LIMITED; INTEGRITY INSURANCE

COMPANY; HAWAIIAN INSURANCE & GUARANTY COMPANY, LIMITED;

HOLLAND-AMERICA; INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY;

TRADEWIND INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED; and 

ISLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED,

Respondent/Third-Party-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 28958; CIV. NO. 06-1-0140)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Kubo, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and 

Circuit Judge Border, in place of Acoba, J., recused)

The application for writ of certiorari filed on

December 23, 2013 by Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee James River

Insurance Company, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for

oral argument.

The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk

regarding scheduling of the oral argument. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 3, 2014.

Robert J. Romero,

Anne D. O’Niell, and 

Jodie D. Roeca, for

petitioner/defendantappellee James River 

Insurance Company

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Edward H. Kubo, Jr.

/s/ Patrick W. Border
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 the Alderwood Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2010 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/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President, Director,
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: February 16, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         176,991
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,412,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (34,486)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,025,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,682,051
<PP&E>                                         171,488
<DEPRECIATION>                                (51,287)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,572,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,347,979
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                     837,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,572,143
<SALES>                                      8,545,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,545,773
<CGS>                                        7,983,736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  433,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   73,678
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,871
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,678
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82
        

</TABLE>
From: Joshua Burman (MPCA) [Joshua.burman@state.mn.us]

Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2 :10 PM To: Rich LaShier Subject: States’ Policies Respecting CBI Claimes for Hazardous Waste Manifests; Followup from

MN

Dear Rich: Minnesota is likely an interesting example, since Minnesota not only requires submittal to the state of a copy of all SQG & LQG manifests (and thus holds a lot of manifest data), but also has a very open data access law*. *Any data held by MN government agencies which is not exp licitly statutorily protected is considered public data unless and until the subject of the data makes a specific closure application, accompanied (and this is the kicker) by a legal showing how the data meets one or more of the available statutory protections. Customer lists do not generally meet any of the available statutory protections. In addition, a data requestor may remain anonymous and need not make any statement of the reason for the request. Minnesota also makes key manifest data (Generator ID#, Manifest Number, Ship Date, Transporter ID#, TSDF ID#, Waste Name, Waste Code, Quantity) available through a publicly available search engine, at: http://www. pca.state.mn.us/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1240&Itemid=2663 or http://www.pca.state.mn.us/yhiz89f To my knowledge, Minnesota has never had a CBI claim regarding manifest data, however, even if w e did receive one, I do not believe it would meet the standards for protection. All manifest data, either individual or in aggregate, is currently considered public information in Minnesota.
Thanks:
**Joshua Burman HW/PCB Compliance**  **MPCA, Mankato Office**