alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Polet Airlines USA To: Robert Silverberg ; msinick@ssd.com ; rpommer@atlasair.com ; carl.nelson@aa.com ; Stephen Lachter; Marty Feldmann ; Bill Evans; sametta.c.barnett@delta.com ; charters@evergreenairlines.com ; 9-ATOR-HQ-RTREQ@faa.gov; anbird@fedex.com ; DPefley@cozen.com ; judy@lac.lynden.com ; Pdoell@naca.cc; Mliland@nac.aero ; Enisson@nac.aero ; peter.beckett@polaraircargo.com ; Kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com ; Richard Macri ; Aaron A. Goerlich ; Benjamin.slocum@usairways.com ; howard_kass@usairways.com ; Joe Hrezo ; Ned Wallace; Malcolm L. Benge ; John Richardson ; jcanny@amerijet.com ; anita.mosner@hklaw.com ; Weiss, Dan ; sales@southernair.com ; VanDerBellen, Alexander; Jeff Johnson ; john@mietuslaw.com ; Vincent Ryan ; Airline Information Research ; urskr@state.gov Cc: Finamore, Robert (OST) ; Kruger, Brett (OST) ; Johnson, Shelita (OST) Subject: [Fwd: polling CABOTAGE application for PHIK-KTCM and PHIK-KPSC] Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:44:02 PM Attachments: ATT00002.png ATT00004.png polling CABOTAGE application for PHIK-KTCM and PHIK-KPSC.eml.msg


# Dear colleagues, Please note the 2nd destination is now changed to Moses Lake, WA (KMWH). DOT will require to confirm your non-objections in accordance with this change. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Dmitry Avdeev, MBA Sales Manager Polet Airlines Tel. +1(212)279-3707 Fax: +1(212)279-6499 Email: Sales.USA@PoletAirlines.com Personal: DAvdeev@PoletAirlines.com http://www.PoletAirlines.com

Join us:
EXHIBIT 23.1

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

Board of Directors
Neomedia Technologies, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our independent auditors' report
dated  February 27, 2004 on the  consolidated  balance  sheet as of December 31,
2003,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,  stockholders'
deficit and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002,  included
in this Form 10-KSB, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements
(File Nos. 333-80591,  333-42477,  333-36098,  333-33738,  333-85422, 333-91284,
333-99183,   333-101588,   333-102103,   333-103172,   333-107239,   333-109778,
333-110189, and 333-110329).

/s/ STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Irvine, California
February 27, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 23-0741

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA DEAN WINTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until March 30, 2024, prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

February 23 2024

02/23/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0741
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00517-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S., a Child

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-02496

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal 

because she qualifies as indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY DION SHAW,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 582 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">J.K.M. Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Tevin Jackson, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Ameriprise Auto &amp; Home Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered May 1, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this action on May 6, 2013 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical services that it had provided as a result of a motor vehicle accident that had occurred on May 5, 2011. The injured party, Tevin Jackson, signed an assignment of benefits to plaintiff on May 6, 2011. Defendant purported to schedule an examination under oath (EUO) of the assignor to be held on July 29, 2011, and, upon the assignor's alleged nonappearance, a follow-up EUO on September 12, 2011.</p><p>On August 21, 2013, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant is not obligated to pay assigned first-party no-fault benefits to plaintiff in light of a Supreme Court order and on the additional ground that the assignor had failed to appear for scheduled EUOs. Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered May 1, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>J.K.M. Med. Care, P.C. as Assignee of Latoya Payne v Ameriprise Ins. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-1219 K C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>Solomon, J.P., Weston and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: December 07, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**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 ofTac Asset Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting 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/ Anthony DeMint                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Anthony N. DeMint

President and Chief Accounting Officer

August 9, 2005
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANNES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peoples First, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh J. Garchinsky, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbannes-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 result of operations of the Company.

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.

                              BY:/s/Hugh J. Garchinsky
                                 -------------------------------
                                 Hugh J. Garchinsky
                                 President and Chief Executive
                                 Officer

                                 May 12, 2003
<PAGE>

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, JACK MORGAN, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
Form  10-QSB  of Cellway Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September
30,  2002  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  and  that  the information contained in the
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Cellway  Ventures,  Inc.



                               By:     /s/ JACK MORGAN
                                      ---------------------------
                              Name:
JACK MORGAN
                              Title:  Chief  Executive  Officer
                                      and  Chief  Financial  Officer

                              Date:   November  12,  2002
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 periodic report of PLX
Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Rafael Torres,Chief Financial Officerof
the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title
18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and
2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

|Date: November 3, 2003 | /s/ Rafael
Torres                     
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------
|                       | Rafael Torres, Chief Financial
Officer

---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




The Board of Directors and Stockholders


Atrinsic, Inc. and subsidiaries:




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-145933 and 333-164465 on Form S-8 of Atrinsic, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated April 7, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Atrinsic, Inc. and subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, comprehensive loss, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Atrinsic, Inc. and subsidiaries.





Our report dated April 7, 2011 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.




/s/ KPMG LLP




New York, New York


April 7, 2011


EX-4
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07062]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Regulatory Fairness Hearing; Region III Regulatory 
Fairness Board

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)

ACTION: Notice of open hearing of the Regional Small Business 
Regulatory Fairness Board.

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

SUMMARY: The SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman is issuing this 
notice to announce the location, date and time of the National 
Regulatory Fairness Hearing. This hearing is open to the public.

DATES: The hearing will be held on Monday, April 27, 2015 from 1:30 
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT).

ADDRESSES:  The meeting will be at 901 E Street NW., in the Americas 
Room, Washington, DC 20004. Persons attending the hearing must enter 
the building at the 9th Street NW., entrance between E and F Streets 
NW., with a valid photo identification.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), Sec. 222, SBA announces the 
hearing for Small Business Owners, Business Organizations, Trade 
Associations, Chambers of Commerce and related organizations serving 
small business concerns to report experiences regarding unfair or 
excessive Federal regulatory enforcement issues affecting small 
businesses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The hearing is open to the public; 
however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to 
attend and/or make a presentation to the Region III Regulatory Fairness 
Board must contact Jos[eacute] M[eacute]ndez by April 20, 2015 in 
writing, by fax or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1d72707f68796e707c7330786b7873696e5d6e7f7c337a726b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f49b999681908799959ad99182919a8087b4879695da939b82">[email protected]</span></a> in order to be 
placed on the agenda. For further information, please contact 
Jos[eacute] M[eacute]ndez, Case Management Specialist, Office of the 
National Ombudsman, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 7125, Washington, DC 
20416, by phone (202) 205-6178 and fax (202) 481-5719. Additionally, if 
you need accommodations because of a disability, translation services, 
or require additional information, please contact Jos[eacute] 
M[eacute]ndez as well.
    For more information on the Office of the National Ombudsman, see 
our Web site at www.sba.gov/ombudsman.

    Dated: March 24, 2015
Miguel J. L'Heureux,
SBA Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-07062 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


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

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1673

___________________________

Pedro Eliseo Lopez-Ramirez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: November 30, 2016

Filed: December 6, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Pedro Eliseo Lopez-Ramirez petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s

(IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Where, as

here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, but adds its own reasoning, this

court reviews both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions together. See Garcia-Milian v.
Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (decisions are reviewed to determine if

substantial evidence supports them, and are reversed only when petitioner shows

evidence isso compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find in his favor). 

To qualify for asylum, Mr. Lopez-Ramirez had to show past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution on account of, as relevant, membership in a

particular social group. See Garcia-Colindres v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1153, 1156 (8th

Cir. 2012). Further, he had to show that the particular social group he identified was

composed of members who shared a common immutable characteristic, were defined

with particularity, and were socially distinct within the society in question. See

Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (8th Cir. 2016). We conclude that the group

he identified--Guatemalan males whose denial of gang involvement caused them to

be beaten before coming to the United States--failed to meet those requirements. See

Juarez Chilel v. Holder, 779 F.3d 850, 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (groups of persons who

suffered violence, or threats of violence, due to their refusals to join criminal gangs

lacks requisite visibility, particularity, and/orsocial distinction to qualify as particular

social group); Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 481, 483 (8th Cir. 2011) (agreeing

with IJ and BIA that criminal violence and recruitment efforts by Guatemalan gang

did not implicate enumerated protected ground). Because Mr. Lopez-Ramirez did not

establish eligibility for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily

failed as well. See Ngugi, 826 F.3d at 1139 (withholding of removal requires higher

burden of proof than asylum). The petition for review is denied. 

______________________________

-2-
#### JOHN G. HIBBARD, Plaintiff in Error. *vs.*MILO H. PETTIBONE and ABRAHAM HATFIELD, Defendants in error.

ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT, PORTAGE COUNTY.

When the sheriff had a writ of attachment returnable the first Monday of April, and did not make return until the 17th of July, and the plaintiff took no steps to procure a return to the writ, nor entered his own appearance in the case ; held that the action thereby became discontinued.

Where the plaintiff in an attachment suit brings the defendant before the court by publication of notice, &c., enters the default of the defendant, and sues out a writ of inquiry to assess his damages, but did not previously take an interlocutory judgment ; held that for want of the entry of the interlocutory judgment, the final judgment was erroneous.

In a case where the defendant does not enter an appearance, the plaintiff must proceed in the action strictly according to law, and the well established practice of the court.

The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

*Smith*& *Keyes, and*if. *BoucJe,*for the plaintiff in error.

*M. Sirope,*for the defendants in error.

*By the Court,*

Cole J.

We think the judgment of the circuit court in this case should be reversed.

It appears from the record that the suit was commenced by 3 writ of attachment sued out by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, as an absconding debtor. The writ was sued out on the 23d day of January, 1854, and *271was made retainable according to law on the first Monday of April next thereafter, that being the first day oí the next succeeding term of court. The writ, however, was not in fact returned until the 17th day of July thereafter, about which time the usual steps were taken to bring in the plaintiff in error by publication and notice as in case of non-resident defendants.

The statute requires, section 1, chap. 90, R. S. that all writs and process from courts of record in this State shall be made returnable on the first day of the next succeeding term, &c. If the Sheriff neglected to make a return of the writ at the proper time, the defendants in error should have taken steps to have compelled him to make return. This they did not see proper to do. Now the practice is not to be tolerated of officers keeping in their pockets writs of court, months after the day on which they should be returned, and then file them in the clerk’s office at pleasure. As no appearance was entered by the plaintiff in error, it was particularly incumbent upon the defendants in error to proceed in the action according to law and the well established rules of practice.

Again, we find upon the examination of the record, another error which cannot be overlooked. The defendants in error at the proper stage in this cause, entered the default of the plaintiff in error, and sued out their writ of inquiry to assess damages. But they did not previously take an interlocutory judgment, as they should have done. We consider the proceedings in the case so irregular that the judgment based thereon ought to be reversed.

Judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF D.E.V.,

A CHILD.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-10-00205-CV

Appeal from

 150th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC # 2008-CI-20544)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion, for determination whether it should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant failed to pay the case filing fee, we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 23, 2010. He did not pay the filing fee as

required by TEX.R.APP.P. 5, nor did he establish his indigence in accordance with TEX.R.APP.P.

20.1. On July 19, 2010, the Clerk of the Court notified Appellant he had not paid the filing fee and

advised that failure to pay the filing fee within twenty days would result in dismissal of the appeal

pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(b) and (c). Appellant has not paid the filing fee or otherwise

responded to the Clerk’s inquiry. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

September 29, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Xinhua  China  LTD.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Xianping Wang,  President and 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, to 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.


Date: November 13, 2009



                                       By: /s/ XIANPING WANG
                                           _____________________________________
                                               Xianping Wang
                                               President/Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

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.

 December 7, 2016

s1130

Order 

Clerk

December 7, 2016

153808 & (86)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153808

COA: 320559

Wayne CC: 13-008885-FH

REGINALD DESHAWN WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file pro per supplement to application for 

leave to appeal is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2016 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.