alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 24, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-21-01168-CV No. 05-21-01169-CV

IN RE JUAN F. TURCIOS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-70886-P and F11-70896-P

ORDER Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus.

/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE
o pr""I'JT ~) ... > 'OF 'I'TMI,}s, 111 u -1'n DOR,'T'''TiQ, I-itt '~~ . !lr\("/;:"(~ 0 New Jersey Avenue, SE Assistant Secretary u.s. Department ",;,'\L LJ Washington, DC 20590 

of Tra,nsportation 

March 25" 2010 .--, 1 •Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

The Honorable Donald R. Mull' 


Mayor of Alcoa 


Alcoa,TN 37701-1948 


Dear Mayor Mull: 

Thank you for your letter of February 25 supporting the application for antitrust immunity filed 

byAmerican Airlines and Japan Airlines. I am responding on behalf of Secretary LaHood. 

, As you may know, the applicants-members of the oneworld Alliance-are seeking antitrust 

immunity to closely coordinate flights between the United States and Asia. According to the 

application, the alliance partners plan to launch a joint venture for conveyance oftranspacific 

traffic. 

The application is administered in a public docket, which ensures that interested parties have the 

opportunity to comment. The U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) will evaluate the 

application according to rigorous statutory standards, beginning with a review of the record to " 

determine if it is substantially complete. Decisions on the application are made in consultation 

,with the U.S. Department ofJustice's Antitrust Division following a thorough analysis of 

competitive factors. As this matter is now pending, I hope you understand that I cannot 

comment on the merits ofthe application. I can assure you, however, that DOT will give full 

,and fair consideration to the application as well as any comments filed in the docket. 

As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy of your letter and,this'response in Docket 

DOT-OST-2010;._as a contact outside the record in this matter. I appreciate your interest in 

this proceeding. 

Sincerely yours, 

~ Susan L. Kurland 


Assistant Secretary 


for Aviation and International Affairs 

S I 0-100309-026 '. '.
#### CLINTON COTTON MILLS, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 4063.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

July 3, 1937.

T. Frank Watkins, of Anderson, S. C., and R. T. Wilson, of Laurens, S. C., for petitioner.

Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Malcolm F. Halliday, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Order of National Labor Relations Board modified and enforced, and petition for review dismissed. Consent decree filed.
|                                                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                        |  |  |  |
| Delaware                                                               | 001-07572 | 13-1166910 |
|     (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
|      200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York   | 10016 |
| (Address of principal executive offices)                               | (Zip Code) |

----

|         |
|---------|
|         |  |
| Exhibit | Description |
| 99.1    | Press Release, dated April 30, 2013 |

----

----

|         |
|---------|
|         |  |
| Exhibit | Description |
| 99.1    | Press Release, dated April 30, 2013 |
### Conference Call with Tribal Environmental Professionals

September 10 , 2009

Meeting Note to the Docket

Discussion Topics

On September 10 , 2009 , representatives from the US Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) participated in a meeting to update intereste d members from the National Tribal

Air Association (NTAA) o n the status of the rule titled: “Review of New Sources and

Modifications in Indian Country.” The attendees discussed the:

• Proposed schedule for finalizing the rule
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20495

TINA M. RANDOLPH,

Plaintiff - Appellant - Cross Appellee

v.

DIMENSION FILMS; MIRAMAX FILM CORP.; SONY PICTURES

ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; BUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;

COLUMBIA PICTURES; THE WALT DISNEY CO.; TROUBLEMAKER

STUDIOS; ROBERT RODRIGUEZ; R. M. RODRIGUEZ, By parent and next

friend, Robert Rodriguez; ELIZABETH AVELLAN; JOHN DOE(S) 1-999,

Defendants - Appellees - Cross Appellants

JOHN DOE(S) 1-999

Defendant - Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:08-CV-1836

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 16, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-20495 Document: 00511143770 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2010
No. 09-20495

PER CURIAM:

*

We affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the trial judge.

 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.

2

Case: 09-20495 Document: 00511143770 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2010
EXHIBIT 32.2  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") by Gold Horse International, Inc. (the "Registrant"), I, Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify 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, and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.  /s/ Adam WassermanName: Adam WassermanTitle: Chief Financial Officer, principal financial and accounting officer  Dated: November 15, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
## MRI Industry: Review of Proposed Accessibility Standards

U.S. Access Board May 8, 2012 Atlanta, Georgia Milind Dhamankar MD Siemens Healthcare Sr. Director Product Marketing **MRI is Complex**  **Installation needs a RF cabin** [Diagram consisting of illustrations and a photo: Arrangement of image shows basic MRI concepts and their relationships. On one side of the diagram is a cartoon image of a body showing basic organ systems with the caption “hydrogen protons “and “65% H2O”. O n the other side is a magnetic resonance image of a torso identifying a spot with the caption “computer to reconstruct images” . Cartoon images of a magnet with caption “magnet “and of a radio with caption “radio frequency energy” are shown between the body and torso images . A large arrow accompanying the magnet and radio points toward the torso image ] **Ferrous materials within magnet room is a hazard!**  [ Graphic Icon : do - not - symbol over letters “MR” .] [ P hoto : O xygen cylinder is stuck to the magnetic part of a MRI machine .] [P hoto : IVpole is stuck to the magnetic part of a MRImachine . ] [ P hoto : Danger sign indicating restricted access because of magnetism . ] **Chapter M3: MRI**  Proposed requirements o M301.2 o M305.2 o M301.4

 Current Abilities o MRIs designed to effectively image patients of all ages and sizes (up to table weight capacity/bore size) o “MRI conditional” wheel
- chair, transport trolley, patient transport shells are available o For MRI – Free standing overhead track lifts may be challenging due to the magnet, but MR compatible lifts possible. [P hoto : Patient on equipment scanning bed, lying on their side for a MRI of their back . ] [ P hoto : MR image of patient’s back scan . ]**Chapter M3: MRI**

 Proposed requirements o M301.2 o M305.2 o M301.4  Current Abilities o MRI table tops have patient positioning cushions, safety straps, side rails, iv stand holders and emergency pull –out mechanisms o Newer high - density, ultra - light coils come in all sizes ranging from extra
- small loop coils to XXL body coils. [P hoto : S everal positioning cushions . ] [ P hoto : M RI coil on a patient’s elbow . ] [ P hoto : M RI coil on a patient’s shoulder . ] **Patient Commu nication**  **Advisory M306.1**  Proposed requirements o M306.1  Improvement in patient communication during MRI exam  Current Abilities  Current MR systems comply with this requirement  Patient communication unit o Intercom communication with the patient o Patient alert system (squeeze
- bulb)  No radiation in MRI allows presence of patient relative / help next to the pa tient to coordinate tactile communication **Moving Forward**  MRI manufacturers are committed to providing medical device access for all patients and are thankful for the opportunity to participate in standards development with the United States Access Board . Thank You
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAFONZO R. TURNER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

B. M. CASH, individual and Warden, in her official capacity; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 55539

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 04758

- SB

- AGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2024 * *

Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner L afonzo R. Turner appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute or

comply with court orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A. , 782

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 23 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 55539

F.2d 829, 83 1

- 3 2 (9th Cir. 1986)

. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Turner’s action

because Turner refused to attend the first day of trial , and he abandoned a

subsequent hearing despite being repeatedly warned that fail ure to appear at a

proceeding would result in a dismissal

. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639,

642

- 43 (9th Cir. 2002 ) (setting forth factors for determining whether an action

should be dismissed as a sanction for failure to prosecute or comply with a court

order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260

- 61 (9th Cir. 1992) ( the district

court ’ s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction”

that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)) ; Thompson , 782 F.2d at 831 (“We have repeatedly upheld the imposition

of the sanction of dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial procedures

mandated by local rules and court orders.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Turner’s contentions that the district

court was biased against him

.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Turner’s motion to submit a supplemental declaration (Docket Entry No. 1 4 )

is granted. All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2116 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 

numerical limitations on immigrant visas and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2011 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself and Ms. HANABUSA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans 

from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Filipino Veterans 

5 Family Reunification Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM IMMIGRANT VISA LIMIT. 

7 Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the 

9 end the following: 

10 ‘‘(F) Aliens who— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2116 IH

1 ‘‘(i) are eligible for a visa under paragraph 

2 (1) or (3) of section 203(a); and 

3 ‘‘(ii) have a parent (regardless of whether 

4 the parent in living or dead) who was natural5 ized pursuant to— 

6 ‘‘(I) section 405 of the Immigration 

7 Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–649; 8 

8 U.S.C. 1440 note); or 

9 ‘‘(II) title III of the Act of October 

10 14, 1940 (54 Stat. 1137, chapter 876), as 

11 added by section 1001 of the Second War 

12 Powers Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 182, chapter 

13 199).’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PVH Corp. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Emanuel Chirico, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





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




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




Dated: March 28, 2012





By:/s/ Emanuel ChiricoName:Emanuel ChiricoChairman and Chief Executive Officer





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.
Exhibit 31.4


Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to


Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)


as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Mekonnen P. Asrat, certify that:


|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Silicon Graphics International Corp. for the year ended June 24, 2016; and

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




SILICON GRAPHICS INTERNATIONAL CORP.By:/s/   MEKONNEN P. ASRATMekonnen P. AsratChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)





Dated: October 21, 2016
Exhibit 4.74

[*]: THE CONFIDENTIAL PORTION HAS BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT AND THE OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.

Addendum No. 2 to the bareboat charter dated 20 April 2004 between NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. as charterers and Ocean Dream Limited as owners in relation to the vessel named MV Norwegian Dream (the
Charter)



|1. | The parties have agreed that the Charter Period set out in box 21 of the Charter shall be amended to read The Vessel shall be redelivered between [*] and [*].
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The parties have agreed that box 22 of the Charter shall be amended to include the following after the charter hire rate: Such daily rate will be subject to change, with
effect from the date of Addendum No. 2, with the agreement of both parties, on terms that are under discussion and that will be determined in due course.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | The parties have agreed that facsimile signatures for this Addendum No. 2 shall be deemed valid and binding upon the parties and shall have the same force and effect as
original signatures on this Addendum No. 2.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Save as expressly provided by this Addendum No. 2, all other terms and conditions of the Charter, as amended, shall remain unamended and in full force and effect.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Colin Veitch                       
|For and on behalf of NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

Date: 30 May 2008



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ Chong Chee Tut                      
|For and on behalf of Ocean Dream Limited

Date: 30 May 2008
<PAGE>

Exhibit 15.0



Letter re unaudited interim financial information

June 4, 2001



To Bracknell Corporation:

We are aware that Bracknell Corporation has incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements Nos. 333-59656 and 333-59658, its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended April 30, 2001, which includes our report dated June 4, 2001,
covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant
to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a
part of those registration statements prepared or certified by our firm or a
report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11
of the Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any procedures
subsequent to June 4, 2001.

Very truly yours,

Arthur Andersen LLP

                                      20
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4478 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4478

   To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on Pinoxaden.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2012

 Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on Pinoxaden.

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

SECTION 1. PINOXADEN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.60 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Pinoxaden) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``1.1%'' and inserting ``5.2%''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ex parte Preston Alvin PUCKETT.

No. 27380.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Relator is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in this state as an .habitual criminal.

By application for the writ of habeas corpus to this court, he seeks his outright discharge from such custody or, in the alternative, an amelioration of his punishment.

The grounds for relief prayed for, as stated in the application, seek to have this court review and determine the correctness of the trial court’s ruling in holding sufficient the validity of and proof touching the alleged prior convictions relied upon by the state to enhance the punishment.

All such matters were properly reviewable by this court in an appeal from, the judgment of conviction.

No appeal, however, was perfected.

For this court to now réview such matters would authorize the writ of habeas corpus to be used as a substitute for an appeal in the case.

This we have repeatedly refused to do. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be utilized to take the place of an appeal. Attesting authorities are numerous and will be found collated under Note 5 of Art. 113, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

The indictment upon which the conviction was obtained is regular upon its face and authorized the punishment. Ex parte Daniels, Tex.Cr.App., 252 S.W.2d 586, therefore has no application.

The, application for the writ of habeas corpus is refused. .

Approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing

WOODLEY, Judge.

Relator urges that we should declare the punishment of life imprisonment to be ex-, cessive because one of the prior convictions was not available to the State for *697enhancement purposes, and therefore he should not be required to serve more than the punishment applicable under Art. 62 P.C. for a second conviction for a non-capital felony of like character, which is 10 years.

This Court is not authorized to enter a declaratory judgment. In cases of this character our duty is confined to a determination of whether the restraint and imprisonment is illegal.

The decision in this case will in no way prejudice relator’s right to again apply for release when he has credit for ten years on his sentence.

Relator’s motion for rehearing is' overruled.