alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*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 circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR.R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50099

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL MELENDEZ-LOPEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-94-CR-049

February 3, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Melendez-Lopez appeals the district court’s findings that two of the prosecutor’s

peremptory challenges did not violate Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). He argues that 1)

the reasons given for the two peremptory strikes were either not race-neutral or a pretext for
discrimination and 2) the district court abused its discretion in denying the cross-examination of the

prosecutor and an in camera inspection of the prosecutor’s notes taken during voir dire.

A review of the record of the Batson hearing reveals that the prosecutor sufficiently

articulated a reason for striking venire member Sylvester Levaria. See Polk v. Dixie Ins. Co., 972

F.2d 84-86 (5th Cir. 1992). Furt hermore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the

prosecutor’s reason for striking venire member Maria Navarette did not contain an impermissible

racial stereotype and was not a pretext for discrimination. See United States v. Tarrazas-Carrasco,

861 F.2d 93, 94-95 (5th Cir. 1988). 

We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing the crossexamination of the prosecutor or an in camera inspection of the prosecutor’s notes. See United

States v. Clemens, 941 F.2d 321, 323-24 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30129 

Summary Calendar

IN THE MATTER OF: MAURINE F. ROOHANI,

Debtor.

MAURINE F. ROOHANI, 

Appellee,

versus

LOUISIANA STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

COMMISSION and LOUISIANA OFFICE OF STUDENT

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE,

Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-3649)

( July 13, 1995 )

Before KING, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself; and as a result thereof

have concluded that the findings and conclusions of the bankruptcy

judge in his memorandum opinion of July 19, 1994, which has been
wjl\opin\95-30129.opn

hrd 2

affirmed by the district court on appeal by its Order of January 3,

1995, are not clearly erroneous and the judgment of the district

court is therefore AFFIRMED.
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 February 2010 – Commission v Spain**

**(Case C‐523/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/71/EC – Specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative
action – Not permissible in the case of an express requirement that reference be made to a directive (Art. 249, third para.,
EC) (see paras 13-14)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third‐country nationals for the purposes of scientific research (OJ 2005 L 289, p. 15). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4699 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize the use of title 

III funds for the establishment LGBTQ resource centers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 20, 2017 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BROWN of Maryland, Mr. CARSON

of Indiana, Mr. CRIST, Mr. DESAULNIER, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Ms. LEE, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of 

New York, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. POCAN, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SWALWELL of 

California, Ms. TITUS, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize 

the use of title III funds for the establishment LGBTQ 

resource centers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Inclusive Campuses 

5 Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4699 IH

1 SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR LGBTQ RESOURCE CENTERS. 

2 Part G of title III of the Higher Education Act of 

3 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1068 et seq.) is amended by adding at 

4 the end the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 399A. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR LGBTQ RE6 SOURCE CENTERS. 

7 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, an 

8 institution that receives funds under this title may use a 

9 portion of such funds to establish an on-campus resource 

10 center that provides— 

11 ‘‘(1) support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans12 gender, and queer students; and 

13 ‘‘(2) programming and education about such 

14 students to the entire campus community.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4520 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4520

    To provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on 
    supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in 
        critical access and small rural hospitals through 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2017

  Ms. Jenkins of Kansas (for herself and Mr. Loebsack) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on 
    supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in 
        critical access and small rural hospitals through 2017.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ENFORCEMENT INSTRUCTION ON SUPERVISION 
              REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTPATIENT THERAPEUTIC SERVICES IN 
              CRITICAL ACCESS AND SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS THROUGH 2017.

    Section 1 of Public Law 113-198, as amended by section 1 of Public 
Law 114-112 and section 16004 of Public Law 114-255, is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``2016'' and inserting 
        ``2017''; and
            (2) by striking `` and 2016'' and inserting ``2016, and 
        2017''.
                                 <all>
```
Record of Discussion

Docket No. FAA-2012-1001 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-020-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval 

Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON 

CONTACTED

DATE RESPONSE

Cessna Aircraft 

Company

Engineers/Project 

Engineers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information:
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PUBLIC MEETING ON

TEST PROCEDURE FOR SET-TOP BOXES

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Room 8E-089 Review Center

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this public meeting to discuss and invite comment

on the proposed test procedure for set-top boxes.

Agenda

9:00

– 9:15 am Welcome, Introductions, Opening Statements

Doug Brookman

9:15

– 9 :30 am Rulemaking Process

Jeremy Dommu

9:30

– 10:00 am Scope

Jeremy Dommu

10:00

– 10 :15 am Summary of NOPR

Jeremy Dommu

1 0:15

– 1 0 :45 am Definitions

Mansi Thakkar

10:45 – 11:00 am Break

11:00

– 1 1 :30 am Test Conditions & Setup

Mansi Thakkar

1 1:30 – 1 2:3 0 pm On, Sleep, & Off Mode Tests

Mansi Thakkar

12:3 0

– 1:3 0 pm Lunch

1 :3 0

– 3 :0 0 pm On, Sleep, & Off Mode Tests (continued)

Mansi Thakkar

3:00

– 3:15 pm Break3 :15

– 3 :45 pm Sampling Plan

Allen Tsao

3 :45

– 4 :00 pm Calculation of Annual Energy Consumption Metric

Allen Tsao

4 :00

– 4 :1 5 pm Estimated Burden to Small Businesses

Allen Tsao

4 :15

– 4:30 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Doug Brookman

At the end of each section, time will be set aside for web participants to ask

questions and/or make statements.

Questions e

- mailed during webinar will be included in the transcript.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street ~ rQ'\ {0) \W 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 ~ ~ tF U 

The Honorable Robert M. Summers, Secretary 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

1800 Washington Boulevard 

Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

Dear Secretary Summers: 

On January 8, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the 

Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 

The SIP revision addresses the infrastructure elements specified in section 11 0( a)(2)(A) through (M) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) which are necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 lead 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the State ofMaryland. EPA has determined that the 

submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). 

If members of your staffhave any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Emlyn Velez-Rosa, 

Office of Air Pr9gram Planning, at (215) 814-2038, or velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

~(A_\./~C~ @._+ 

Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

cc: George (Tad) Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration 

Diane Franks, Program Manager, Air Quality Planning 

.,. 

tJ Printed on I 00% recycled/recyclable paper with I 00% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
EXHIBIT 13.1

906 Certification

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company
Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rong Guangdao, the Chairman of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Date: June 30, 2006



By:

/s/ Rong GuangdaoName:

Rong GuangdaoTitle:

Chairman
Sanitized – Attachment 014 

Page 1 of 1
October 3 , 2014

Robert Pappas

Special Rules Coordinator

UAS Integration Office

Re: Additional Support for Team 5 LLC ’ s Exemption Request P ursuant to Section 333

FAA Docket No. 2014

- 0783

- 0001

Dear Mr. Pappas:

I am sending you a quick follow up that I feel helps underscore our compelling reason for an

expedited exemption. The links below illustrate the reach of our relationships and the work the

core Team 5 members have safely per formed over the last few decades. I realize you have

been inundated with exemption requests, but again

, I just wanted to reinforce how incredibly

painful this is, especially since we are, at this time, being bombarded with potential projects.

David Nowell

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0461300/

Alan Purwin

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0701042/

Fred North

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm063 6005/

Kevin LaRosa

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0478985/

Dylan Goss

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0343360/

David Paris

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0661545/

Thank you sincerely for your continued attention to this matter and for all of your help.

Very truly yours,

Alan D. Purwin

Managing Member

Team 5, LLC 

## TEAM 5, LLC

16303 Waterman Drive

Van Nuys, CA 91406

Phone: 818

- 902

- 0229

Fax: 818

- 902

- 9278
#### Michael Perrino et al., Respondents, v Christopher Hogan et al., Appellants.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Doran, J.), entered August 20, *4791990 in Schenectady County, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

In September 1985, the parties contracted for plaintiffs to sell and defendants to purchase a parcel of real property located at 2269 Ghent Road in the Town of Rotterdam, Schenectady County. The contract was made contingent upon defendants obtaining approval of a fixed-rate mortgage loan of $85,000. However, the mortgage contingency was to be deemed waived by defendants unless they notified plaintiffs in writing prior to October 15, 1989 of their inability to obtain mortgage approval. Defendants apparently failed to obtain the necessary mortgage to finance the purchase of the property but never informed plaintiffs in writing, as required by the contract. Prior to the closing date, defendants notified plaintiffs that they had decided not to purchase the property. Plaintiffs thereafter commenced this action for breach of contract and subsequently moved for summary judgment. Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that plaintiffs had actual notice of defendants’ inability to obtain a mortgage and that defendants were unaware of the contract’s requirement that such notice be in writing. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ motion and this appeal by defendants followed.

We affirm. Defendants initially argue that plaintiffs’ actual notice of their inability to obtain a mortgage provided sufficient notice thereof to satisfy the contract requirement. We disagree. "[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” *(W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157, 162). Here, the contract clearly provides that, for defendants to avoid waiver of the mortgage requirement, they were obligated to notify plaintiffs in writing of their failure to obtain financing. They did not and nothing in the unambiguous language of the contract indicates that anything less than written notification would be acceptable. Accordingly, we are constrained to uphold the sanctity of private agreements *(see, Harris v Shearson Hayden Stone,*82 AD2d 87, 94-95, *affd*56 NY2d 627) and find defendants in technical breach of the contract *(but see, Kaplan v Lippman,*75 NY2d 320, 325).

We further find that, inasmuch as plaintiffs were not seeking specific performance of the contract, the papers in support of their motion were sufficient to entitle them to summary judgment in the first instance. Consequently, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs summary judgment.

Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
InThe Matter Of: NORTHEASTERN 

### SERVED: April 12, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2014-0812 AVIA TION CORPORATION 

### ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) Case No. 2012EA110028 Respondent ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING •·. .**~** .

ft 

### () b

OnMarch 23, 2016, an Order Setting Filing Deadline was filed. Among otherthings, this Order set an April 8, 2016 deadline for the parties to file settlement documents, and instructed the parties to informally contact the Office ofHearings attorney staff, ifthe parties needed an extension oftime. Later on March 23, 2016, a Notice ofHearing Location was filed, which provided the full address and other details ofthe hearing location. OnApril 7, 2016, the FAA contacted the Office ofHearings attorney staffby telephone to request an extension oftime to file settlement documents. Later that same day, the OH attorney staffnotified the parties by e-mail that the deadline to file settlement documents was extended to the parties' agreed upon date ofApril 14, 2016. OnApril 12, 2016, the FAA filed the Agency's Withdrawal ofComplaint, stating "pursuantto a settlement agreement, [the FAA] withdraws its Complaint inthis matter." After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised;**~** 

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Hearing set for May 4- 5, 2016, at the Jacob K Javits Federal Building inNew York, New York, is cancelled. 2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service List

Page 2of2

### DocketNo. FAA-2014-0812 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST

- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1



### Mr. Zachary M. Berman Complainant's Counsel ONE COPY

Office ofRegional Counsel, Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699 Mr. Edward J. Longosz II Respondent's Counsel
. Eckert Seamans Cherin & 

### Mellott, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 TEL: 202-659-6619 FAX: 202-659-6699 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service inperson or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF INEZ S. HORTON, DECEASED. INEZ HORTON GAY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. FIDELITY UNION TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR, ETC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted January 10, 1949

Decided January 24, 1949.

*572
      *Mrs. Inez Horton Gay*pro se as plaintiff-appellant.

*Messrs. Riker, Emery & Danzig,*for defendant-respondent *(Mr. Charles W. Kappes, Jr.,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

Motion is made to dismiss the appeal from the final judgment of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in the above entitled cause as not taken within time. The judgment was entered in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court on October 13, 1948. Notice of appeal therefrom to this court was filed December 3, 1948. *Rule*1:2-5 requires such an appeal to be taken within 45 days after the entry of the judgment appealed from. The present appeal is therefore out of time and *Rule*1:7-9 provides that the time for taking an appeál may not be extended.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.

*For granting motion:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Heher, Oliphant, Wachenfeld, Burling and Ackerson —7.

*Opposed:*None.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              S E N A T E

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2012

No. 124
```