alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________
ALVERN C. WEED , Petitioner

,

v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMI NISTRATION , Respondent.

__________________________
201 3- 3122

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in consolidated Nos. DE1221090320 -B- 1, DE3330080490 -B- 2, and DE4324090086 -B- 2.

__________________________
ON MOTION

__________________________
Before D YK , P ROST , and O’M ALLEY , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Alvern C. Weed moves for reconsideration of the court’s previous rejection of his petition for review.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) issued its final order on September 10, 2012. Mr. Weed’s repr esentative received the order via electronic mail on Se pCase: 13-3122 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2013ALVERN WEED V

. S SA 2

tember 10 , 2012

. * Mr. Weed’s petition was received by this court on May 20, 2013
, 252 days after he received the Board’s final order. Our review of a Board decision or order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) , which provides in relevant part that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any pet ition for review shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S .C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (2012). This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp. , 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ; see also Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived).

Because Mr. Weed’s petition was not received within 60 days of the date he received the Board’s decision, we must dismiss his petition as untimely. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) Mr. Weed’s motion for reconsideration is denied, and his petition is dismissed

. (2) All sides shall bear their own costs

.

* The regulation governing the dates for service of electronic documents at the Board states, in relevant part, “MSPB documents served electronically on registered e

filers are deemed received on the date of electronic su bmission.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2). Case: 13-3122 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2013ALVERN WEED V

. SSA 3

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

s 26
ISSUED AS MANDATE: July 18, 2013 Case: 13-3122 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 07/18/2013
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

SWEN OLDOFF SWENSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2548 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 21, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Highlands County; Peter F. Estrada, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,418
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       33
<ALLOWANCES>                                       536
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,656
<PP&E>                                           1,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,217
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,086
<COMMON>                                           469
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,085
<SALES>                                          1,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,987
<CGS>                                            1,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,328
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,961)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,961)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,961)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.30)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN FLORES, AKA Juan Flores, Jr.,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 73089

Agency No. A090

- 214

- 113

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2022

San Francisco, California

Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ, * *

District Judge. Dissent by Judge VANDYKE

Juan Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an im migration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his applications for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 asylum and withholding and deferral of removal

. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review de novo questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey

,

512 F.3d 11 63, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Flores was charged with removability solely because of a conviction under

California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 136.1(b)(1)

. On remand from this Court after a

prior petition for review, the BIA held that Flores was removable because the CPC

§ 136.1(b)(1) conviction was an offense relating to obstruction of justice under 8

U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S) , and thus an aggravated felony. In Cordero

- Garcia v.

Garland , we held that CPC § 136.1(b)(1) is not an aggravated felony under

§ 1101(a)(43)(S)

. No. 19

- 72779, 2022 WL 3350714, at *6 (9th Cir. Aug. 15,

2022). Thus, the sole charge of removability against Flores cannot be sustained and

his petition must be gra nted.

We remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this order.

See Andia v. Ashcroft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the

decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If

we conclude tha t the BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we

must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.3 VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

For the reasons set forth in my di ssent in Cordero

- Garcia v. Garland , No. 19

-

72779

, 2022 WL 3350714 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2022) , I dissent in this case as well. 

# FILED

AUG 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Exhibit 32.2

The Coast Distribution System, Inc.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2008,

as Amended on Form 10-K/A

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K, of
The Coast Distribution System, Inc. (the Company), for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and as amended by this Amendment on Form 10-K/A (the Annual
Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 30, 2009

/s/ SANDRA A. KNELLSandra A. KnellExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and will be retained by The Coast Distribution System, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION1



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act)
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Daniel V. Santi, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kosan Biosciences Incorporated (the Company), and Susan M. Kanaya, Senior
Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic
Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and



2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the periods covered by
the Periodic Report and the results of operations of the Company for the periods covered by the Periodic Report.



In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of August 13, 2003.



| |  |  | 
| |  |  | 
| |  |  | 
| |  |  | 
| |  |  | 
| |  |  | 
| |  |  | 

---

|1 |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18
U.S.C. §1350), has been provided to Kosan Biosciences Incorporated and will be retained by Kosan Biosciences Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.1 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of QMed Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Jane A. Murray, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company and William T. Schmitt, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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. 

 

 

| /s/Jane A. Murray |
|-------------------|

Jane A. Murray

President and Chief Executive Officer

March 25, 2008  

 

 

| /s/  William T. Schmitt, Jr. |
|----------------------------------------|

William T. Schmitt, Jr.

Chief Financial Officer

| March 24, 2008   |
|----------------------------|

 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to QMed Inc. and will be retained by QMed Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03670]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Support for Research Excellence--
First Independent Research (SuRE-First) Award (R16--Clinical Trial 
Not Allowed).
    Date: March 21, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G21A, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Video Assisted Meeting).
    Contact Person: Shiv A. Prasad, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G21A, 
Rockville, MD 20852, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 
Rockville, MD 20892, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8af9e2e3fca4faf8ebf9ebeecae4e3e2a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea9982839cc49a988b998b8eaa848382c48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 16, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03670 Filed 2-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 180 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 180

  To amend the National Guard Youth Challenge Program under title 32, 
United States Code, to exclude nondefense funds made available by other 
Federal agencies for the Program from the matching requirements of the 
                                Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2011

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Guard Youth Challenge Program under title 32, 
United States Code, to exclude nondefense funds made available by other 
Federal agencies for the Program from the matching requirements of the 
                                Program.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE PROGRAMS UNDER THE NATIONAL 
              GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM.

    Section 509(d) of title 32, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3) Nondefense funds made available or transferred to the 
Secretary of Defense by other Federal agencies to support the Program 
shall not be subject to the matching-funds requirement imposed by 
paragraph (1).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Gene Donald LUNDY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28534.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1956.

*776Clyde W. Woody, William F. Walsh, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady and Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the sale of marijuana; the punishment, 10 years.

The prosecuting witness stated that she went to a certain lounge in the City of Houston on the day in question and there purchased from the appellant a large envelope which contained a substance later identified by an expert witness as marijuana.

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.

The only serious question presented for review by this record is the failure of the court to instruct a verdict of not guilty on the grounds that the prosecuting witness was an accomplice witness and her testimony had not been corroborated.

She testified, without objection, that she had on a prior occasion purchased marijuana from the appellant; that she was a secretary for the Narcotic Division of the Houston Police Department; that she occasionally did undercover work for the officers of that division; and that she went to the lounge on the date in question as the result of a prearrangement made by the officers with money furnished by them.

In Silba v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 135, 275 S.W.2d 108, 109, we said:

> “A sound rule which we think has been accepted in most jurisdictions is this: If all the evidence shows that the witness is answerable to the law as a principal or an accomplice to the crime or an accessory to the accused or if'he has been indicted as such, then he is an accomplice witness as a matter of law. If there is a conflict in the evidence, then the question should be submitted to the jury. But if there is not enough evidence to support a charge against the witness as either a principal, an accomplice or an accessory, then he is not an accomplice witness (_xcept in those rare cases where he may not be prosecuted as an accessory because of his kinship to the accused)."

We have concluded that the record before us does not meet the test set forth above. It is incumbent upon the accused to develop such facts as would show that the rule applies.

We are not required to pass upon appellant’s contention that the prosecuting witness was guilty of violation of a Federal statute when she purchased untaxed narcotics or whether such violation would make her an accomplice witness because the record before us does not show that she was guilty of any offense.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Linda L. Perry, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wings & Things,
Inc.;

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

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


                        /s/ Linda L. Perry
Date: August 8, 2006    ________________________________________________
                        Linda L. Perry, Principal Executive Officer