alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SERVE D MARC H 9,201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH EMATTERO F EMPIR EAIRWAY S FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DMSNO . FAA-2010-019 1

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No . 2009EA110039 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Isaa c D . Benkin . Al l future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r person s o n th e attache dServic e List .

iw.A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC^3 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y Charle s J . Casolaro , Respondent' s Counse l Casolar o Sussman , LL P 105 0 Frankli n Avenue , Suit e 40 2 Garde n City , N Y 1153 0 TEL : 516-248-139 9 FAX : 516-248-225 7 Zachary M . Berman , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-325 8 FAX : 718-995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorne y 202-366-043 7 Legal Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,418,805
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  247,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      81,641,029
<DEPRECIATION>                            (45,107,293)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,943,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     54,698,629
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,943,685
<SALES>                                      3,807,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,830,247
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,109,867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,208,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (488,287)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (488,287)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

825 

KA 15-00954 

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KHADIJAH LANE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT. 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John

J. Brunetti, A.J.), dated April 17, 2015. The order granted the

motion of defendant to suppress physical evidence. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed and the indictment is dismissed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion

to suppress physical evidence, the People contend that Supreme Court

failed to properly credit their witnesses and erred in granting the

motion. We reject that contention. “ ‘It is well settled that the

suppression court’s credibility determinations and choice between

conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof are granted

deference and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the 

record’ ” (People v Sylvester, 129 AD3d 1666, 1667, lv denied 26 NY3d

1092). Here, the court found the testimony of one of the police

witnesses to be “unworthy of belief” and therefore concluded that “the

People failed to meet the burden of establishing the legality of the

police action in the first instance” (People v Rumph, 199 AD2d 434,

435). We conclude that the court’s credibility determination is

supported by the record, and thus we see no basis to disturb it (see

Sylvester, 129 AD3d at 1667). 

Contrary to the People’s further contention, the court did not

“assume the role of defense counsel.” “A [t]rial [j]udge in a

criminal action is not merely an observer nor only a referee. It is

the [j]udge’s duty to assume an active role in the examination of

witnesses where proper or necessary to elicit or develop significant

facts, to clarify or enlighten an issue, or to facilitate or expedite

the orderly progress of the trial” (People v Ellis, 62 AD2d 469, 470). 

There is no evidence in this record that the court acted improperly;

rather, upon review of the hearing transcript, we conclude that the
-2- 825 

KA 15-00954 

court attempted to clarify issues because the police officer’s

testimony was confusing and contradictory. 

In view of our determination, the indictment must be dismissed

because “ ‘the unsuccessful appeal by the People precludes all further

prosecution of defendant for the charges contained in the accusatory

instrument’ ” (People v Moxley, 137 AD3d 1655, 1656-1657). 

Entered: October 7, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KHUSHVIR SINGH SUMAN; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74600

Agency Nos. A095-410-284

A095-410-285

A095-410-286

A095-410-287

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Khushvir Singh Suman, Savita Suman, and their children, citizens of India,

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction

FILED

APR 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74600

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft,

381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s order

dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners

failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the

regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also

Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have

changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate

claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”). 

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 99.1



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
Quarterly Report of BCT International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q of the period ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William A. Wilkerson, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/    WILLIAM A. WILKERSONWilliam A. Wilkerson Chief Executive Officer July 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF GLOBAL SPILL  MANAGEMENT,  INC. FOR THE TWELVE  MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 , AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS             
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                                62 
<SECURITIES>                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     156 
<PP&E>                                                62
<DEPRECIATION>                                        24
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    21,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                852     
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              25     
<OTHER-SE>                                        21,018   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      21,995
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   5,666                                      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (9,047)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (7,334) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (1,713)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (9,047)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (15.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (15.03)  

        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1316

In Re: RANDY L. THOMAS, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cv-00200-GCM) 

Submitted: May 1, 2009 Decided: June 10, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Randy L. Thomas petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

seeking an order vacating the district court’s February 13, 2008 

order imposing a prefiling injunction, compelling the state 

court to vacate a child custody order, and addressing claims 

raised in prior actions. We conclude that Thomas is not 

entitled to mandamus relief. 

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner 

has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & 

Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, 

mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th 

Cir. 1987). 

Mandamus may not be used as “a substitute for appeal.” 

In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief 

against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg 

County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have 

jurisdiction to review final state court orders, District of 

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). 

The relief sought by Thomas is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We 

2 
3 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 58332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 6869]

Announcement of Meeting of the International Telecommunication 
Advisory Committee

    Summary: This notice announces a meeting of the International 
Telecommunication Advisory Subcommittees (ITAC) on October 6, 2011, 2-4 
p.m. EDT, at the Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20520, to seek further advice from the telecommunications industry 
on (a) whether the U.S. should agree that Study Group 15's draft new 
Recommendation G.tp-oam (Operations, Administration and Maintenance 
mechanism for MPLS-TP in Packet Transport Network (PTN)) should be 
considered for approval at the December Study Group meeting, (b) the 
policy that the U.S. should invoke during the approval process at the 
meeting, and (c) from the technical standpoint, what is the range of 
acceptable alternative positions that the U.S. could take during the 
approval process.
    This meeting is open to the public as seating capacity allows. The 
public will have an opportunity to provide comments at this meeting. 
People desiring further information on this meeting, including those 
wishing to request reasonable accommodation to attend the meeting, must 
contact the Secretariat at minardje@state.gov, by September 30, 2011.
    The Department of State customarily makes informal distribution of 
documents and supports informal discussions of relevant matters on an 
email listserver named sgb-15. People desiring to join this list should 
apply to the Secretariat.

    Dated: September 14, 2011.
Franz J.G. Zichy,
International Communications & Information Policy, U.S. Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2011-24116 Filed 9-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
```
REF ID:A363462 

PATENTS RESPECTING INVENTIONS 

OF 

Number 

2028772 

ZOS.0416 

2139676 

2395863 

2465367 

2166137 

Serial 682096 

,, 107Z44 

•• 704-lZ 

•• 478193 

•• 54908(; 

•• 551172 

-~ 443320 

W IL LIA M F • F .R IE D MA N 

Inventor 

Patents Issued 

Friedman and G:raham 

Friedman 

Fried1:nan 

Friedman 

Friedman and Mauborgne 

Friedman and Rowlett 

Inventions in Secrecy 

Friedman 

Friedman 

Friedman and. Rowlett 

Friedman 

Friedman 

Friedman 

Friedman and Rowlett 

Date of Application 

Z5 July 1933 

23 October 1936 

23 March 1936 

6 Ma.rch 1943 

8 March 1944 

12 June 1944 

16 k1arch 1942 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-29-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
REF ID:A2436265 

OFFICES OF THE 

SENIOR UNITED STATES LIAISON OFFICER 

LONDON, ENGLAND 

UNITED KINGDOM MAIL ADDRESS 

FLAT 5 0 7 7 N. AU OLEY ST. 

LONOON, W. I. ENGLAND 

SEBRET 

5ECH'!' 

Mr. William F. Friedman 

Special Consultant 

National Security Agency 

Washington 25, D.c. 

Dear Billy, 

Serial 00940 

6 October 1.954 

U. S. MAIL ADDRESS 

BOX 55 

NAVY No, 100 

F.P.O. NEW YORI(, N. Y. 

I believe I have the answers to the questions raised by you in your 

21 September letter. Leslie Rutledge has been in a confab with John 

Til tman and I I -

The Directorate at GOHQ takes a dim viewofNSAf'ormally asking f'or 

visits by specific GCHQ personnel. To get around this:,:: suggesti;he f'ollowinga 

a. You ascertain if NSA-34 would prof'i t by a vi~it :f':t"C)lf.li >I 

This you have done. 

,,,,.,,. PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

b. As the answer is 11 Y~.B'', yotl. w~i te 13- J?Ett:~9n8.l note toc=J 

explaining the····p····r····i·····n·· ceton a,:p.gle (whi.·c···h······ h .. e·········k·······n·······o·· ~ :a.:I.ready) an_ .. ··d· 13a.ying th~· your p.e .. r·····s····o···nal checking indic~··· th·a·····t ... ··N·····S·· A .... 34 would we···l· o ..o·· me s. visit by O tuallyprof'itable. Ask if in his opinion GCHQ.would profit rom 

visiting NSA. Then, tel that if he believes that such a visit 

w be worthwhi~ f'C):t'lllal proposal from the······Director, GCHQ to the 

Director, N'SA forL__Jto visit NSA would be warmly received in America. 

c. Depending upon how you~ you could probably arrange for 

invitational orders to be issued to to permit him to travel via MATS. 

As you know, the British usually trave y one of the "Queens 11 and I do 

not know if the Director, GOHQ would be willing to pay the bill f'or this 

expedition nor if Director, NSA would want to go to the trouble of getting 

invitational orders issued. This last could be done in this ohannela NS.A. 

to Department of the Army (G-2) to the Army Attache, London who would 

aotually out the orders but on D/A authority. It seems to me that what 

you do here is to balance cultivating Wilks against the inconvenience. I 

leave this problem with youl 

Pete, just before he left, checked on your package from Self'ridges. 

It was posted on 9 September, post office sheet no. 1856. I expect you 

have it by now or will soon. With dock strikes at both New York and London, 

a del f six weeks more would not be uncommon. 

eclassified and a roved for release b NSA on 07-22-2014 ursuantto E.O. 1352 

~inoerely, ~ • 

SEORET Se~or»~~b.~':;)io~~ London
#### Hopkins vs. Hopkins. (First Appeal.)

*Presumption on Appeal.*

On appeal Horn a judgment of divorce, where there was no appearance in the trial court by the defendant before judgment, and no bill of exceptions, this court cannot review the evidence (taken before a referee); and, if the complaint states a good ground for divorce, must presume that the evidence was sufficient to sustain it.

APPEAL from tlie Circuit Court for *Dodge*County.

*A. Seott Sloan,*for appellant.

Submitted for the respondent on the brief of *II. W. Lander.*

Cole, *J.*

This is an appeal from a judgment of divorce. The defendant, though personally served with summons, made no appearance in the action. His counsel now claims that the evidence taken before the referee did not warrant a divorce from the bond of matrimony. Whether it did or not we cannot determine, because the evidence is not before us for review. There is nothing brought up on the appeal but the record proper, which does not include the report of the referee who took the testimony upon which the divorce was granted. *Krause v. Krause,*23 Wis., 354. The complaint certainly states a good ground for a divorce; and we must presume that the matters alleged were established by sufficient and satisfactory evidence. And, as there is no error upon the record, the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 27, 2017

s0124

Order 

Clerk

January 27, 2017

154945(105)

SC: 154945

In re HEARD/BRUCE, Minors. COA: 331676

Wayne CC Family Division:

13-511403-NA

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 13, 

2017 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
November 17, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID E. JOHNSON, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00197-CV V.

NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee

________________________________

This Court today heard a motion for rehearing filed by appellee, National 

Indemnity Company. We order that the motion be granted and that this Court’s 

former judgment of June 14, 2016 be vacated, set aside, and annulled. We further 

order this Court’s opinion of June 14, 2016 withdrawn.

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order 

of dismissal with prejudice signed by the court below on June 15, 2015. Having 

considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, David E. Johnson.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136957 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136957 

 COA: 282935 

Wayne CC: 07-007355-01

RALPH WILLIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk