alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Zhu Di ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-60750.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 7, 2005.

*92Yu-Ju Chang, Law Office of Yu-Ju Chang, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Zhu Di Zhang, a citizen of China, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Zhang argues that the IJ erroneously concluded that he was not credible and ignored his substantial evidence that he faced persecution in China based on his religion.

Zhang initially told immigration authorities in sworn statements that he came to the United States to work and that he did not fear persecution on religious grounds. The IJ determined that Zhang was not credible because the religious persecution claim was fabricated and developed only after Zhang arrived in the United States. The IJ concluded that Zhang’s application for asylum was frivolous. The IJ rejected, as likewise unsupported, Zhang’s claims for relief under the U.N. Convention against torture.

“We give great deference to an IJ’s decisions concerning an alien’s credibility.” *Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.2002). In this regard, we have made it emphatically clear that we “will not review decisions turning purely on the immigration judge’s assessment of the alien petitioner’s credibility.” *Chun v. I.N.S.,*40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994) (quotation omitted). Based on the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and the record does not “compel! ]” a contrary conclusion. *Id.*

PETITION DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Fruit Fly

2024 Quick Reference

Program: Fruit Fly (FF)

Application: ArcGIS Field Maps

Host: USDA-MRP GIS Enterprise (portal)

Map Title: PPQ FF Trapping Surveys 2024 Field Map

CHECK URL! https://maps.mrp.usda.gov/arcgis/

IMPORTANT!! You must synchronize your map at the beginning/end of each workday.

1. Open ArcGIS Field Maps. Confirm the correct ArcGIS Enterprise URL.

2. Open previously downloaded map area.

3. Stand at the point you wish to collect.

4. From the menu bar at the top of the page, tap the Layers icon to toggle ON the

layers you wish to view/edit.

FF Trap Sites

1. Tap the blue plus sign in the lower-right corner of the map to add data. 

2. Select a trap/lure combination from the menu on the left.

3. Complete the data form (Verify the Install Date field is Today.)

4. Tap the Submit button in the upper right corner.

FF Trap Activities 

1. Tap the trap symbol on the map to select it. The data form opens on the left.

2. Scroll down and tap FF Trap Activities 2024 or tap the link icon. 

3. Tap the blue Add button. 

4. Complete the data form. (Verify the Activity Date field is Today.)

5. Tap the Submit button in the upper right corner.

FF Map Notes Points

1. Be sure this layer is enabled/visible. 

2. Tap the blue plus sign in the lower-right corner of the map to add data. 

3. Choose from FF Map Notes (Info or Hazard) from the list on the left.

4. Complete the data form. (Verify the Note Date is Today.)

5. Tap the Submit button in the upper right corner.

If the Submit button fails, you have not completed all required fields or GPS accuracy failed.

To preserve battery power, put the device to sleep between surveys. 

For more details, refer to the PPQ FF Trapping User Manual.

ArcGIS Field Maps 

Mobile Application

Add data button

Layers icon

Activity link icon

Scott Bauer, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Bugwood.org
AAM-12-330-E May 1, 2012

Exemption No. 10524 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0447

Mr. Alan Robertson AH Aero Services, LLC 1980 Airport Road, Hangar E Heber City, UT 84032

Dear Mr. Robertson:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 14, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of AH Aero Services, LLC (AH Aero Services), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow AHAero Services, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to AH Aero Services.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant AH Aero Services, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow AH Aero Services, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of AH Aero Services are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the AH Aero Services part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:23 AM

To: 'sps.jdh@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Petition for Exemption: Swin gPointMedica, Inc. (FAA-2015-0742)



### Dear Mr. Harrison and Ms. Anderson:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0742). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, S ection 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operat ion please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by June 3, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
Exhibit 99.2

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 First Amendment to the Annual Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis E. Bunday, Chief Financial Officer 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:





|/s/DENNIS E. BUNDAYDennis E. Bunday
Chief Financial Officer
Williams Controls, Inc
February 11, 2003 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE
PERIOD DECEMBER 31, 1995
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         890,683
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  501,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,392,542
<PP&E>                                      17,687,325
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,553,346
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,526,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,938
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,459,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,526,521
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,386,883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,168,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,218,529
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Tommie ANDERSON, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees.

No. 04-5308.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 17, 2005.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 2005.

Tommie Anderson, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Before RANDOLPH, ROGERS, and ROBERTS, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion for an injunction, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 22, 2004, dismissing this case without prejudice, and its orders filed July 29, 2004, and August 11, 2004, be affirmed. Appellant’s damages claims are barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The district court therefore properly dismissed the case and denied reconsideration. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an injunction be denied.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
# C_2019054EN.01002002.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/20

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — ZU v Commission

(Case T-671/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Civil service - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))

(2019/C 54/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking a suspension of the operation of the Decision of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security of the European Commission of 12 October 2018 (Ares(2018)5241886 — 12/10/2018) relating to the transfer of the applicant, and of the Decision of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security of the European Commission of 29 October 2018 (Ares(2018)5529220 — 29/10/2018) relating to his return to headquarters.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
## Pr opo s e d R u l e : C o n f i d e n t i a li t y D e t e r m

i n a t i o n s f o r N o n

- I n p u t s u n d e r t h e G H G Re po r ti n g R u l e M ee ti n g D o c u m e n t a t i o n : N o n

- Pr o f it E nv i r o n m e n t a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s 4 / 19 / 11

D ate E PA S t a ff C o n ta c t

I n fo r m a t i o n ( N a m e , e

ma i l

, p h o n e # ) N am e of O r g a n i z a ti o n ( A t t a c h li s t of all a t

t e n d ee s n am e s a n d

e mail s i f p o ss i b l e ) S u m ma r y o f D i s c u ss i o n ( e

. g

. , a p p l i c a b il it y , r e p o r t i n g r e q

u i r e m e n t s , e t c .) W r i tt e n C o mm e n t s P r ov i d e d ? D i d t h e y al s o

s u b mit t o D o c k e t? D at e s e n t to

E PA -CC D

4 / 19 / 11 B il l I r vi n g ,

i r v i ng

. b i l l @ e

p a. gov

J o e G o f f m a n , g o f f m a n

. j o s e p h @ e p a. g ov

B e t h C r a i g , c r a i g

. b e t h @ e

p a. gov

J e s s i c a G o r do n , g o r do n

. j e s s i c a@ e

p a. g ov

J e nn i f e r B o h m a n , boh m a n

. j e nn i f

e r@ e p a. gov

P a t r i c i a E m b r e y , e m b r e y

. p a t r i c i a@ e

p a. g ov

G i n a M c C a

r t hy

, m cc a r t hy

. g i n a@ e

p a. gov

R e i d H a r v e y , h a r v e y

. r e i d @ e

p a. g ov N R D C :

M e l e a h G e e

r s t m a

V i c k i e Pa tt on , v p a tt o n @ e d f

. o rg

S i e r r a C l ub :

C r a i g S e g a l l

, C r a i g .S e g a l l @ s i e

rr a c l ub

. o rg

E nv i r on m e n t a l D e f

e n s e F u n d :

M a n d y C

. W a r n e

r

P e t e r Z a l z a l

, p z a l z a l @ e d f

. o rg

M a r k M a c L e o d

, mm ac l e o d @ e d f

. o rg T im i n g o f s i g n a t u r e a n d pub l i c a t i o n o f f i n a l r u l e C o mm e n t s p r e v i o u s l y p r o v i d e d a n d

s ub mi t t e d t o D o c k e t 8 / 31 / 1 0

, 9 / 9 / 10

,

11 / 30 / 1 0
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

Annex 45. Items 7.2. and 7.3. – Glossary

GLOSSARY

[...]

*COLLECTION AND INCUBATION CENTRE*

	means a facility approved by the *Competent Authority* in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 4.Z. for holding broodstock, the collection of eggs, fertilisation and incubation, and the collection, processing, and storage of milt. 

[...]

*FERTILISED EGG*

means a viable fertilised *ovum* of an *aquatic animal*. ‘Green eggs’ means newly fertilised ova of fish. ‘Eyed eggs’ means *fertilised eggs* of fish where the eyes of the embryo are visible and that the *fertilised eggs* may be transported.

[...]

*GAMETES*

means the sperm (contained within seminal fluid or milt) or unfertilised eggs of aquatic animals that are held or transported separately prior to fertilisation.

[...]

*ORNAMENTAL AQUATIC ANIMAL*

	means an *aquatic animal* that is intended for display, exhibition, competition, or to be kept as a pet.

[...]

____________

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8
EXHIBIT 32.2

GENAERA CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Skolas, Executive Vice President and Chief 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:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John A. Skolas                                  
|John A. Skolas                                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

August 9, 2006
#### Richard Winter, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 52113.)

Court of Claims,

February 8, 1971.

*588
      *Richard J. Wisniewski*for claimant. *Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Joshua J. Efron*of counsel), for defendant.

Milton Albert, J.

Claimant alleges that he was injured as the result of the defendant’s negligence while claimant was using a chair lift at the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center. The claim has been placed upon the calendar of the Albany District for trial in such district (Rules of the Court of Claims, rule 2; 22 NYCRR 1200.2).

The claimant has moved to take the deposition before trial of a witness on the ground that the witness resides at a distance over 100 miles from the place of trial.

The witness, alleged to be an eyewitness and hence potentially a most crucial witness, resides in Flushing, New York, well over 100 miles from Albany. Thus, it would appear that the requirements of CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [3]) have been met. The use of a deposition upon the trial, however, presents many problems. (See Discovery: Use of Part of Deposition, N. Y. L. J., Feb. 4, 1971, p. 4, col. 4.) The lack of personal appearance of the witness, potentially as crucial as the one with whom this motion is concerned, would deprive the Trial Judge of the opportunity to observe such witness’ demeanor and his method of answering and also would deny to the Trial Judge the opportunity to question such witness and thus to form a well-grounded opinion as to the weight to be accorded the testimony of such witness.

For such reasons, because of the potentially crucial role which the testimony of such witness might play in the decision which the Trial Judge will have to make, for the orderly conduct of the trial and fully to enable the Trial Judge to do justice, the court in its discretion, denies the motion to take the deposition of the witness Dr. Janusz E. Bartos *(Kaufman*v. *State of New York,*286 App. Div. 912). The testimony of the witness is available at the trial by way of a subpoena (CPLR 2302 *et*seq).
p.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

82) IV-E-76 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:58:00 AM Sheet 82 of 117 
P.2 

A-90 

IV-E-76 

DATE AND TIME: October 2; 2:30 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. 

Jeff Holmstead, OAR met with Leslie Ritts, Hogan & Hartson, NEDA/CARP and following 

folks: 

Michael Palazzolo, ALCOA 

Roy Carwile, ALCOA 

Jerry Fulmer, ALCOA 

Matthew Frank, Boeing 

Debby Rowe, DaimlerChrysler 

Barbara Bankoff, Eli Lilly , ^rwv) 

Bernie Paul, Eli Lilly 

Ted Steichen, ExxonMobil 

Robert Morehouse, ExxonMobil 

Matthew Tanzer, General Electric (by phone) 

Don Clay, Koch Industries 

William A. Collins, Occidental Petroleum 

David Emery, Phillips Petroleum 

William Burkhart, Procter & Gamble 

Max ine Dewbury, Procter & Gamble 

Shannon Broome, NEDA/CARP consultant (by phone) 

DISCUSSION: Title V Operating Permits, preconstruction review delays and the complexity oi 

applicability determinations, compliance monitoring and compliance certifications and the 1 12(J) 

MACT Hammer deadlines. Also, about the need for simplificatin and reform of NSR.
#### Kitay v. Pantheon Co., Ltd.

22939

07/10/2002

Vacated and Remanded