alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   Board of Directors The Standard Register Company Dayton, Ohio  We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries as of September 28, 2008 and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the thirteen and thirty-nine week periods ended September 28, 2008 and September 30, 2007. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.  We conducted our reviews in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.  Based upon our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.  We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries as of December 30, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 10, 2008, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 30, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.   /S/BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP   Dayton, Ohio October 29, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5646 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5646

To prohibit funds appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security 
    from being used to pay for an abortion, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

Mr. Huizenga of Michigan (for himself, Mrs. Hartzler, Mrs. Ellmers, Mr. 
Boren, and Mrs. Roby) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
    to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, 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 prohibit funds appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security 
    from being used to pay for an abortion, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland Security Respect for Life 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS BY SECRETARY OF 
              HOMELAND SECURITY.

    (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated for the Department 
of Homeland Security under any Federal law shall be available to pay 
for any abortion, except--
            (1) in a case where a pregnant detainee suffers from a 
        physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that 
        would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant detainee 
        in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a 
        life-endangering physical condition caused by, or arising from, 
        pregnancy itself, or in a case of rape; and
            (2) that if this subsection is declared unconstitutional by 
        a court of competent jurisdiction, this subsection shall be 
        null and void.
    (b) No Person Required To Perform Services.--None of the funds 
appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security under any Federal 
law shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate in 
any way the performance of, any abortion.
    (c) Construction.--Nothing in subsection (b) shall remove any legal 
obligation the Secretary of Homeland Security may have to provide 
escort services necessary for a pregnant detainee to receive such 
service outside a Federal detention facility, except that nothing in 
this subsection in any way diminishes the effect of subsection (b) in 
upholding the right of any individual to refrain from involvement in 
abortion.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5411 

To suspend temporarily the duty on parts and accessories of oscilloscopes 

and spectrum analyzers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. HONDA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on parts and accessories 

of oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PARTS AND ACCESSORIES OF OSCILLOSCOPES 

4 AND SPECTRUM ANALYZERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Parts and accessories of 

oscilloscopes and spectrum 

analyzers (provided for in 

subheading 9030.90.88) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5411 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSA NELY ZERMENO

- RODRIGUEZ,

AKA Rosa Nely Zermeno, AKA Rosa Nely

Zermeno Rodriguez, AKA Rosa Nely

Zermo, AKA Rosa Zrmeno,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73683

Agency No. A037

- 446

- 558

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Rosa Nely Zermeno

- Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ order dismissing her appeal from an

i mmigration j udge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her appli cation for withholding of

* 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

APR 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 73683

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings. Padilla

- Martinez v. Holder , 770 F.3d 825, 830 ( 9th

Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) to review the agency’s

discretionary determination that Zermeno

- Rodriguez has been convicted of a

particularly serious crim e that bars withholding of removal. See Pechenkov v.

Holder , 705 F.3d 444, 447

- 48 (9th Cir. 2012) (no jurisdiction to review

particularly serious crime determination where there is no assertion of legal or

constitutional error and the only challenge is th at the IJ incorrectly weighed the

facts).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Zermeno

- Rodriguez did not establish that it is more likely than not that she would

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government i f returned to

Mexico. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ROBERT WESLEY SMITH,

Petitioner

v.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent

______________________

2020-1463

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0752-17-0470-M-1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

JOHN THOMAS HARRINGTON, The Employment Law 

Group, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also 

represented by ROBERT SCOTT OSWALD.

 CORINNE ANNE NIOSI, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC argued for respondent. Also represented by 

JEFFREY B. CLARK, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.

 ______________________

Case: 20-1463 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2021
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (WALLACH, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

March 11, 2021 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1463 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2021
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25794]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service


Notice on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.

ACTION: List of restricted joint bidders.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the 
Minerals Management Service by the joint bidding provisions of 30 CFR 
256.41, each entity within one of the following groups shall be 
restricted from bidding with any entity in any other of the following 
groups at Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales to be held 
during the bidding period November 1, 2000, through April 30, 2001. The 
List of Restricted Joint Bidders published March 30, 2000, in the 
Federal Register at 65 FR 16957 covered the period May 1, 2000, through 
October 31, 2000.

Group I. Exxon Mobil Corporation; and ExxonMobil Exploration Company
Group II. Shell Oil Co.; Shell Offshore Inc.; SWEPILP; Shell Frontier 
Oil & Gas Inc.; Shell Consolidated Energy Resources Inc.; Shell Land & 
Energy Company; Shell Onshore Ventures Inc.; Shell Deepwater 
Development Inc.; Shell Deepwater Production Inc.; and Shell Offshore 
Properties and Capital II, Inc.
Group III. BP Exploration & Oil Inc.; BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; 
Amoco Production Company; Vastar Offshore Inc.; and Vastar Resources 
Inc.
Group IV. Elf Exploration, Inc.; Elf Aquitaine Oil Programs, Inc.; 
TOTAL Exploration Production USA, Inc.; and PetroFina Delaware, Inc.


    Dated: October 2, 2000.
Walt Rosenbusch,
Director, Minerals Management Service.
[FR Doc. 00-25794 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7739

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONATHAN WAYNE HADDEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.

(CR-98-156)

Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donathan Wayne Hadden, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donathan Wayne Hadden seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion in part and

denying his motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003). As to claims dismissed by a district court

solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will

not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252

F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hadden has not

satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.28
                                                                   -------------


                        AMENDMENT I OF AGREEMENT OF SALE

This Amendment I of Agreement of Sale dated this 2nd day of January, 2003 by
                                                 ---
and between Paragon Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter "Seller") and J.G. Petrucci
Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Buyer").


                                   WITNESSETH:


WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into an Agreement of Sale on or about
November 8, 2002; and

WHEREAS, the Agreement of Sale went into effect on November 8, 2002; and

WHEREAS, the Seller and Buyer wish to amend the Agreement of Sale.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the mutual undertakings of
the parties set forth herein, and with the intention of being bound hereby, the
parties agree as follows:

    1.    Section 7: The time period for the Buyer to conduct its due diligence
          ---------
          investigations shall be increased from sixty (60) days to one
          sixty-seven (67) days ("Extended Due Diligence Period") thereby
          making the final day of the due diligence period January 14, 2003.

    2.    Section 3: Settlement shall occur on or about January 29, 2003.
          ---------

    3.    No Other Modifications. Except as herein modified, the Agreement of
          ----------------------
          Sale remains unmodified and in full force and effect. To the extent
          that there are any conflicts between the Agreement of Sale and this
          Amendment I this Amendment I shall govern.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be duly
executed on the day and year first written.

SELLER:                                   BUYER:

PARAGON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.               J.G. PETRUCCI COMPANY, INC.



By:      /s/ William R. Johnson          By:       /s/ James G. Petrucci
         --------------------------                ----------------------------

Name:    /s/ William R. Johnson          Name:     /s/ James G. Petrucci
         --------------------------                ----------------------------

Title:   /s/ CEO                         Title:    /s/ President
         --------------------------                ----------------------------

Witness: /s/ Ronald J. Semanick          Witness:  /s/ Gregory T. Rogerson
         --------------------------                ----------------------------
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5451 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Methane Sulfonic Acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. MEEHAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Methane Sulfonic Acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. METHANE SULFONIC ACID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Methane Sulfonic Acid 

(CAS No. 75–75–2) (provided for in subheading 

2904.10.50) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5451 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
July 9, 2015 

Mr. Kenneth J. O’Brien 

2505 Lexington St. 

Lafayette, CO 80026 

Dear Mr. O’Brien: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 29th 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2540), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brittany Newton 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 199 (Friday, October 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26316]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems: Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems (1189).
    Date and Time: October 31, 2000; 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 370, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: A. Frederick Thompson and Nicholas L. Clesceri, 
Program Directors, Division of Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems, National Science Foundation; 4201 Wilson Boulevard; 
Arlington, Virginia 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8320.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Environmental Engineering 
Unsolicited proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: October 10, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-26316 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```
Exhibit
        32.2
 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 Annual Report of Open Energy Corporation (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cheryl Bostater,
        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
        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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/
        Cheryl Bostater
 Cheryl
        Bostater
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 
 
 September
        1, 2006